Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Quandary: Is It Better Off if the House Stays Blue?
The American Thinker ^ | September 03, 2010 | Kyle Stone

Posted on 09/03/2010 3:22:19 AM PDT by Scanian

finding that Republicans have a double-digit advantage in its generic ballot test. Nevertheless, with the prospect of a GOP takeover in the House, many Republicans are quietly asking, is this necessarily a good thing?

The question is not new. For months, a quiet undercurrent of concern has emerged, from whispers in the GOP cocktail party scene to intermittent ruminations from national writers. In June, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer admitted that while he hoped Republicans make significant gains, "I want them to fall one vote short of taking the House." Fleischer explained his apparent political blasphemy by suggesting that the GOP House leadership had yet to earn its stripes: "I want to see more evidence that Republicans are ready to govern," he clarified, and "I want to see more substance, particularly on what spending they will cut."

Substance aside, a GOP House takeover is not without obvious political risks for 2012. President Obama would no longer have Speaker Pelosi, easily the least popular Democratic figure on the national scene, weighing him down. GOP House leadership would be exposed and susceptible to liberal caricature. Stripped of any legislative power, no current officials are vulnerable as lightning rods for Democratic vitriol. (The old standbys, President Bush and Sarah Palin, seem only to accentuate liberal desperation and political impotence.) Without the presidency or congressional leadership posts, Republicans have inadvertently earned this advantage.

But recent history offers a lesson in this respect: Bill Clinton found his political traction only after the 1994 Republican Revolution elevated Newt Gingrich to the speakership. Might the same be true in potential Speaker John Boehner? While the popular Ohio congressman enjoys respect and goodwill within GOP ranks, many party supporters may be afraid to find out. The over-tanned, drab Ohio congressman may be a fine representative, but he's hardly the face the GOP wishes to project as its post-W image.

With the Senate (likely) still in Democratic hands and the White House flexing its veto-power muscle, House Republicans will struggle pushing forth any aspect of their agenda. Repealing ObamaCare, securing our borders, and renewing the Bush tax cuts will each assuredly require a Republican in the White House. While a slim Republican majority might slow down implementation of ObamaCare and finally offer a pedestal on which to champion fiscal sanity, this still assumes that such a majority would not hinder 2012 Republican presidential prospects.

A Republican majority would arm Democrats with valuable political ammunition in the run-up to the 2012 elections. Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media may finally achieve success with its "Party of No" mantra. For months, this DNC talking point has failed because Americans understand that Democrats control all the levers of the federal government by wide margins. But with a slim GOP majority in the House -- and checks and balances thought to be restored -- Democrats will have found circumstances more fitting for their political sniping.

On the other hand, a slim Democratic majority in the House would handcuff Pelosi from passing any significant and divisive legislation (notably any sweeping energy or immigration bills). Worried Democrats, particularly those barely surviving their 2010 reelection, would just as likely lean right on economic issues -- allowing Republicans a practical majority, without the actual numbers. However difficult it is to root for inaction during such perilous times, Republicans may prefer to keep their political foes fully responsible for the Obama malaise.

Significant GOP midterm gains in November, arrested by a razor-thin Democratic majority in the House, would set the proverbial table nicely for the GOP's main course in 2012. Not only would it weaken the Democrats and President Obama, but it would allow the GOP its place as spectator while the president and his party continue to alienate themselves from an American public starving for better leadership.

With momentum swinging the GOP's way, the elephant class will naturally be disappointed if its success in November falls short of a House takeover. No matter; the tempered gains may be a political blessing in disguise. A House takeover, while a triumph after the transcendent election of Barack Obama, might create additional electoral impediments in 2012. Only at that time can a Republican resurgence more practically effect change.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: democrats; majorities; pelosi; republicans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

1 posted on 09/03/2010 3:22:24 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian

These kinds of prognostications always, always fail. “If the R’s win this year, then the public will react THIS way, and vote THAT way two years from now.”

No. We have to stop this disastrous march over the cliff. If we can’t show in two years why Obama should be tossed and the R’s should continue to hold whatever gains they make this time, we’re certainly not going to do any good with this ‘baby steps’ approach.


2 posted on 09/03/2010 3:28:53 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. -- written by Robert Towne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Time to go after the size of the federal workforce and its costly benefits; emphasize the perquisites of federal employment and the graft Obama has engaged in to curry the public employee unions’ favor and consequent contributions. This resonates even in the newsrooms, where reporters know their jobs are not similarly protected.


3 posted on 09/03/2010 3:29:45 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

People are worried that Obambi will be elected in 2012 if the GOP gets in and the economy turns as it did in 1996. Fact is, Clinton only won in 1996 because of Ross Perot.


4 posted on 09/03/2010 3:32:04 AM PDT by ThomasMore (Patrick Henry and Joe Wilson...Patriots past and present!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Interesting analysis but totally irrelevant. It is always advantageous to control the legislative agenda even if the President being benefited by the good parts is a total idiot.

Else the people suffer, the land dies, and the day of Judgment draws nigh!

5 posted on 09/03/2010 3:35:18 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
Clinton only won in 1996 because of Ross Perot. Bob Dole.
6 posted on 09/03/2010 3:35:28 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Republicans need humility and hard work in victory. They need to avoid the Gingrich “mistake” of arrogance, taking every “bear trap” mainstream media interview they are offered — and then surprise when they are set up and it hurts them badly. The mainstream media is an enemy and they need to be treated as such. Arrogance is not attractive and sets up victors in politics for the fall from public support . . .


7 posted on 09/03/2010 3:35:57 AM PDT by November 2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Nevertheless, with the prospect of a GOP takeover in the House, many Republicans are quietly asking, is this necessarily a good thing?

This would be the RINOs who don't give a damn about the last chance to save the US from 3rd world poverty. Real Republicans would be in there, fighting every minute to restore real jobs to US workers, send home invaders, and abolish Obamacare.

8 posted on 09/03/2010 3:41:25 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The argument here is “winning the House in 2010 will make us look bad in 2012”.

But what about the prospect of winning the Senate? The writer doesn’t mention it but many people now consider it a possibility.

What if we win the House and the Senate in 2010? Will that also make us look bad in 2012? Or is that a “horse of a different color”?

And if it is, should we then only try to win the House if it looks possible to also win the Senate?

Ridiculous.

We try to win everything, everywhere. House seats, Senate seats, Governorships state representatives, state senators... everything we can.

And what do we do once we’ve won? We fight for conservative values. We fight for the US constitution. From whatever base of power we happen to find ourselves with.

Don’t fear “winning too much”. Only fear winning too little.


9 posted on 09/03/2010 3:44:25 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The problem with the GOP is that they still have not figured out that it is CONSERVATISM that will win, not dim-lite.


10 posted on 09/03/2010 3:48:17 AM PDT by mathluv ( Conservative first and foremost, republican second - GO SARAHCUDA!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
from whispers in the GOP cocktail party scene

All you need to know. Right there.

Let's win one (almost) for the Gipper!
11 posted on 09/03/2010 3:49:44 AM PDT by nhwingut (Palin/Bachmann '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Don’t fear “winning too much”. Only fear winning too little.

I agree. Also, what the writer is overlooking is that this is not just about the temporary advantage of one political party; it's about the future of the nation. If we don't get enough GOPers in there, Obama and the Dems will continue to carry out their agenda unchecked and by 2012 our country will be so fundamentally transformed that it will be virtually impossible to undo the damage.

12 posted on 09/03/2010 3:50:17 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
When I read this drivel, I was torn between outright laughter and barfing, not a pleasant combination

This article is so off-base it is ludicrous, the old D vs. R type of stuff. If the truth be told, come January, neither the D or the R will be in charge, because the T will likely hold the balance of power in the house, and perhaps also the senate.

Then it will be the GOP's turn to choose between celebration and trepidation....There'll be a juggernaut aimed directly at them then at breakneck speed and just two years away!

13 posted on 09/03/2010 3:53:39 AM PDT by fantail 1952 ("Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Nonsense. The Democrats winning Congress in 2006 did not stop them from them from winning the Presidency in 2008.


14 posted on 09/03/2010 3:53:54 AM PDT by writmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
Clinton only won in 1996 because of Ross Perot. Bob Dole. Kevin Bacon.
15 posted on 09/03/2010 3:58:10 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The “GOP cocktail party circuit” better goddam get the message. We are NEVER going to return to “business as usual”. These corruptocrats in DC have goddam bankrupted our country and nearly destroyed the sumbitch. They MAY have this one last chance to begin to set things aright. If they screw this up it is chaos and they just don’t seem to get it.


16 posted on 09/03/2010 4:01:30 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

***The over-tanned, drab Ohio congressman may be a fine representative, but he’s hardly the face the GOP wishes to project as its post-W image.***

I dunno about that!!! John Boehner looks and sounds a lot like Humphrey (Bogart....NOT hubert)...and we know how folks adore movie stars!!!


17 posted on 09/03/2010 4:05:30 AM PDT by sodpoodle (Despair - Man's surrender. Laughter -God's redemption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Personally I can’t wait to vote in November.


18 posted on 09/03/2010 4:06:07 AM PDT by November 2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

A Party that doesn’t want to lead shouldn’t be a Party.


19 posted on 09/03/2010 4:10:12 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
His performance that year as gay prostitute Willie O'Keefe in Oliver Stone's JFK received tremendous critical acclaim

I guess this is what you mean.

20 posted on 09/03/2010 4:11:51 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson