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.

[ConservativeDude]

right on, good post

[Miss Marple]

Early this morning I was beginning my review of web sites, and this was the first article I read.

It made me so darn mad I went on a posting frenzy on every web site I visit, from Hillbuzz to Ace of Spades and Twitter, too.

This is INSANE! Does anyone recall hearing the democrats say in 2006 “Oh, maybe we shouldn’t take the House because it will make it harder for a democrat to win in 2008?” Of course not!

This is defeatism disguised as strategizing. It is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot afford two more years of Obama’s Wreck America plan!

In two years Obamacare will be entrenched. In two years they will appoint a host of more liberal judges. In two years we may end up with Cap and Trade.

Absolutely INSANE and I cannot believe anyone had the nerve to write this and post it on a respected web site!

I follow the Patton principal.

NO holding position. Advance at all costs. No foxholes. Move forward. VICTORY!

[ThomasMore]

Perot took away 8% of the vote. It would have been a virtual tie in the popular vote and Dole may have gotten in on electoral. This may be all hindsight but Perot was a factor. If we get an independent run in 2012... Obama will surely win and we'll have that treasonous ba$tard until 2016. Does anyone want that?

[Pilsner]

We have to stop this disastrous march over the cliff.

Amen. Never think future success is assured. Just 22 months ago the pundits were speculating about a 3-4 seat gain for Senate Democrats this November. (Before Specter sitched, and before you factored in the unexpired terms for BO, Biden and Hillary, the Republicans were actually defending several more seats than the democrats). The idea that we would tactically not take the House this year, because of some future payoff, is nuts.

But we haven't taken it yet. Find a campaign Freepers, and give them your time and money! Work to make 2 November a success.

[Darkwolf377]

Just 22 months ago the pundits were speculating about a 3-4 seat gain for Senate Democrats

I recall after the election, the pundits talked about how Obama was OBVIOUSLY going to get two terms and the conservative movement was dead--something the RNC accepted as it moved toward more "conciliatory" crap.

See also the title of James Carville's book "40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation."

[FrogMom]

Aye, and if they run McCain again, we’ll have BO for another 4 years. Or more.

[FrogMom]

a slim Democratic majority in the House would handcuff Pelosi from passing any significant and divisive legislation (notably any sweeping energy or immigration bills)

Not sure we have to worry about those. I think the rats will pass those in the Lame Duck days of December.

We can fix (kill) Obamacare and/or energy crap, but ammnesty is forever.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Good grief!!! I'm sick of this "we win if we lose" mentality. We want to win. We do not want to fall one vote short. I'm not working my tail off to fall one vote short.

I'm working my tail off because I want MY congressman, Congressman Steve King in the majority--not the minority.

Enough of this stupid talk.

[Redleg Duke]

This is the same rediculous mindset of a fighter pilot thinking that if he shoots at the enemy, the enemy will get mad at him and shoot back.

We must take back the country...now!

This is not a game, this is not a sport, this is survival!

[dajeeps]

I think the “Thinker” has underestimated the power of what the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triad of tragedy has done to us. Those of us who have lived through this gulf of dispair will not soon forget, nor will we allow our children to forget the crock of lies and deceit they peddled while, at best, they have been derelict in dealing with real problems, basing all their actions in communist delusions instead.

There are many things a Repubblican congress can do to stop Obama in his tracks, especially since Democrats have failed to pass anything that resembles a budget. No money = no power. Having the gov’t shut down is far better of a pill to swallow than one of a gov’t that has stolen boundless power to crush us with.

This political economic crisis has changed many of us permanently, from what we do with money to rediscovering the meaning of faith in the public square. Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally, if nothing else, proved just that. This kind of profound change in public mood, which has not occured in such dramatic proprtions since the 1820s that fueled the abolutionist movement, doesn’t fade so quickly, but rather is very powerful and changes the nation along with it. Not even Obama can stop it.

[Darkwolf377]

Good grief!!! I'm sick of this "we win if we lose" mentality. We want to win. We do not want to fall one vote short. I'm not working my tail off to fall one vote short. I'm working my tail off because I want MY congressman, Congressman Steve King in the majority--not the minority. Enough of this stupid talk.

I sometimes think that since there are pages that need to be filled, people just come up with ideas that are not smart, not pertinent, but DIFFERENT, and so they write about them.

It's so foolish because the reality is so simple--we must take control away from them and have the courage of our convictions. Don't "strategize" that if we do A, B, and C the psychology will result in X, Y and Z.

Have convictions. Lay them out. Take power. Use that power in accordance with what your convictions are, as advertised. Stand or fall based on your convictions and the actions you take according to those convictions.

That's all you can and SHOULD be doing when it comes to government, or you're nothing but a whore.

[MrEdd]

These kinds of prognostications always, always fail

A point refuted in its entirety by the 2008 elections.

Juan McAmnesty/Feingold was absolutely legislating and moving in the same direction as O'Bunghole - just at a slower pace.

By O'bonghit attemting to shoehorn in the bulk of the socialist agenda at once, the conversation (on a national level rather than just among political junkies like freepers) has changed to "what direction should we be going", instead of "how fast should we get there" for the first time since Reagan.

In 2008 the top 3 republican contenders were socialists. The closest after them was a snake oil salesmen that once tried to liberate furniture from a Govornor's mansion.

The whole playing field has changed in a positive direction.

So this Is a pertinent question. Sometimes the right thing is not the least painful thing.

Sometimes the right thing can cost you a lot, even if you win. It is still the right thing.

[MrEdd]

Absolutely. The lesser of two socialists is still a socialist.

[Darkwolf377]

"These kinds of prognostications always, always fail" A point refuted in its entirety by the 2008 elections.

Completely incorrect. You've obviously completely misunderstood what you read.

The "bank shot" prognostications the article and my comment are about have nothing to do with the rest of your post, which is about a completely different topic.

[CAluvdubya]

Hopefully, the candidates that win in our take back of the House are replacing squishy reps. or will, at the very least, build the backbone of any weak R's left that need some "help" remembering what we've elected them to do.

I hope and pray, anyway.

[samtheman]

I hereby nominate you for RNC Chair.

I accept.

My first act of office:

Come up with a plan for ending all Republican participation in "open primaries".

[gusopol3]

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

In 1996, Clinton got more votes than Dole and Perot combined. Perot’s total in ‘96 was much reduced from ‘92, when he may have made the difference. Personally, I believe third party candidates bring out mostly people who would not otherwise have voted. If you look at the ‘88, ‘92 and ‘96 total vote, there’s clearly a bump in ‘92 when Perot was fresh and viable. Jesse Ventura was the best example, though; the total vote went way up in the MN governor’s race; the Republican and Democrat split about 50-50 of the traditional total, Ventura beat them both with novel voters.