GOP Quandary: Is It Better Off if the House Stays Blue?

The American Thinker ^ | September 03, 2010 | Kyle Stone

[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.

[BobP]

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.

-----------------------

Obama never intended to 'deliver.' Obama intended to redistribute wealth. Its Obama's 'real' agenda. Obama has talked about this before. Why don't people get it. Look at the huge bills, health care, the financial bill and the stimulus package. All are filled with mandates and quotas to support special interest groups. Take a look at where our tax money is going. It's going to specific groups and agencies where there is no return, not one dollar coming back. None of it is to help small business. That's why there are trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines. People won't invest, won't hire and won't spend because you don't know what this moron will do next. The whole financial meltdown was caused by a form of reparations, giving homes to people who couldn't afford them.

The bailouts were a democrat graft scheme where the bailed out companies launder the public money back into their own campaigns as political donations.

The federal government is donating money to itself via GM. What a shell game!

What's happening now can be explained like this: people go to the bank to make a deposit. When they look through the front door, they see a bank robber stealing the deposits of customers such as AIG, GM and SEIU. The bank robber is screaming that he will start emptying the vault after he's finished stealing all the depositors' money.

Would you walk through the front door? No, you would wait for the robber to leave -- and be sure he won't return before you venture inside.

That robber is Obama.

There can be no doubt that what Obama seeks is to overthrow the Constitutional Republic that we have enjoyed for the past 230+ years.

Look at what we have become in 18 months.

He must be thrilled. Time for some hoops. Time to take a swim. Time for some ice cream. Up yours America.

Liar = Obama.

Cheater = Feds.

Thief = Congress.

Con artist = Piss-Stream Media.

If we do not get this man out of office through impeachment as soon as possible, we might not have a nation by the time 2012 comes around.

[usconservative]

Fact is, Clinton only won in 1996 because of Ross Perot.

Clinton won in 1996 for a number of reasons, mostly due to the fact that the economy turned up and most people were better off than they were in 1992, combined with the fact that Bob Dole's candidacy was a complete, total disaster. The Republican Party only put him up because he was the establishment candidate and it was "his turn."

In short, Dole was the sacrificial lamb that year, unbeknownst to him.

[mike-zed]

If for no other reason the Rs need to win so that gain the committee chairmanships and the subsequent power to subpoena.

It’s time to shine light on the corrupt fifth that is the Chicago thug administration.

[vanilla swirl]

“Clinton only won in 1996 because of Ross Perot. Bob Dole. “

Hah!
Both true!

Nattering Nabobs of Negativism!

[SuziQ]

No, the Repubs just need to remember what they’re about, and WHY folks vote for them in the first place. They lost their majority the last time because they became almost as bad as the Democrats in their spending and meddling in the lives of regular people with their legislation.

[USS Alaska]

"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."

Such bullshit.

This whole article is insane.

This attitude is the old, go along, get along and the demonRATs will learn that we are really nice, sincere people.

What crap.

[Darkwolf377]

Great points, particularly about the government giving gifts to itself. Look at the spoils of victory for people like Barney Frank, who would be an unknown, minor lawyer (at best) in the private sector—he wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the decision-making center of any financial institution, yet he has taken a hammer (and sickle) to our economy. He and the rest are ideologues who would be complete unknowns if they didn’t have their bizarrely-constructed districts giving them renewals every few years.

The government is a self-sustaining drain, making millionaires of failures whose only talent is being good little props for their parties’ agendas.

Any disagreements I have with the Tea Party movement are microscopic compared to their one great value—it is NOT a party, and BOTH parites fear the movement aimed at crippling the control of this two-party cooperative.

As for Obama, you’re correct again—he is there to redistribute wealth and he is doing so. Personally, I don’t think he gives a damn if he is somehow found out and all is revealed about his past and connections. He would shock us all and resign “for the sake of the country” and go on to decades of wealth via books and speaking engagements,where he will be praised and financially enriched ala Carter and Gore. Why? Because he’s accomplished what he wanted to already, and is now quite obviously bored with the job. He’s delivered a potentially fatal blow to our health and economic systems, and from this point on the government “MUST” take more control of our lives—what more could a socialist want than to cripple an already-wounded capitalist system?

[Darkwolf377]

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 whole idea behind this article is just goofy. What's next? "We don't want to win in 2012, because then we might lose the House and Senate in the midterms, and that's where the financial purse strings are!"?

[kabar]

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. This idiot is too clever by half. The country can't take another two years of a Dem-controlled Congress. It will destroy the country.

Note for the author: If the Dems control Congress, they also control the agenda. They also control the committees. A Rep takeover of one of the Houses of Congress will enable investigations of the Obama administration for the next two years in the runup to 2012.

[AFreeBird]

I hereby nominate you for RNC Chair.

[paulycy]

Win by losing.

Right.

Let’s give up the power to craft bills so that we might look better than the marxists in an election for POTUS two years later.

Yeah. Go GOP. :0/

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

The gop cocktail scene.That is the major problem right there.The dumbasses lost because they were liberal light.Lets just let the tea party candidates take care of the problems in the weak assed gop.The leadership in the gop is the problem pure and simple.Mitch mcconnel just got it broke off in his backside with three of his rinos being defeated.Damn good start.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

We didnt call him bob dull for just any ole reason.

[McGruff]

Fleischer explained his apparent political blasphemy by suggesting that the GOP House leadership had yet to earn its stripes

As I recall Ari not one house republican voted for PORKULUS. If only our senators had some cojones.

[kevkrom]

Not only no, but HELL NO!

The Republicans need to seize control of at least one chamber, and the House is more likely, so they can kill off Obamacare and any other abominations via control of the pursestrings, even if they can’t overturn the laws with veto-proof majorities.

A law with no funding to enforce it is pretty much useless. (One of the main problems with fighting illegal immigration, in fact.)

[DugwayDuke]

“Time to go after the size of the federal workforce and its costly benefits;...”

Excellent, but use a scapel. Get rid of the federal agencies that don’t contribute to the national good. The education department comes to mind as well as most of the energy department and health human services and there are others. Use the savings to reduce spending.

Remember there are federal employees who actually do useful work like the ones who buy the bullets and services our soldiers need. In my experience most of those employees are compensated less than their industry counterparts.

[kevkrom]

I disagree. As dull and uninspiring as Dole was, he would have mopped up Clinton in 1996 if it hadn’t been for Perot.

Watch Bloomberg for signs of an “independent” run this time around...

[metesky]

Yeah, let’s just throw in the towel, that’s the ticket.

[Lakeshark]

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

Worth repeating, great post.

[Louis Foxwell]

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

Agreed. The citizenry is awake, alert and focused, more every day. We are not going to lose our vision for America in a couple of years of frustration with an administration and a pary that blocks every effort by Congress to save our country. Talk about a party of "NO". Just wait.