Posted on 08/28/2010 11:29:13 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON — The incumbent senator from Alaska is taken by surprise in a primary. A new conservative movement energizes Republicans in a furious response to a Democratic White House. Little-known insurgent candidates prepare to storm the Senate.
It is starting to feel like 1980.
While the 1994 Republican takeover of the House is regularly explored for insight into what might happen this polarized election year, parallels are emerging between the watershed Senate election of three decades ago and the campaign of 2010 as another conservative rebellion threatens to reshape the Senate.
In 1980, shocked Senate Democrats lost 12 seats in a rout that ended the Congressional careers of such notable lawmakers as George McGovern of South Dakota, Birch Bayh of Indiana, Frank Church of Idaho, Warren Magnuson of Washington and Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin.
Swept into office by the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan were a number of conservatives, including Jeremiah A. Denton Jr. of Alabama, Mack Mattingly of Georgia, Paula Hawkins of Florida, Steve Symms of Idaho and several others whose notion of the role of government and Congress was markedly different from those they succeeded.
They were labeled the “accidental senators,” candidates who won only by virtue of an extraordinary political environment. The culture of the Senate — and party control — changed overnight...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Never settle for taking one chamber of congress.
The House is a MUST.
Too many squishes remain in the Senate and if Castle joins them, it’ll still take another election cycle to send more fossils into forced retirement.
Still, the thought of taking both chambers, puts a smile on my face, even with the squishes, but remember they can be traitors.
It’s a Wave.....
catch it!!!
the good news is,
Bush is gone
David Letterman was funny in 1987. Does that change?
I adamantly disagree.
All we need is enough padding to ensure a filibuster in the senate. Having a slim majority (which I am predicting at this point) is no better than a slim minority. In fact, in some ways it may be worse because unrealistic expectation on a virtually toothless majority may follow. Democrats could filibuster, and 0bama could veto with no chance of an override.
The House, however, sets funding. With control of the House, Republicans could defund 0bama’s bankruptcy agenda. And Republicans would have the power of subpoena.
I would add one more tactic the GOP should (but probably won’t) adopt with a slim majority or minority in the Senate. Obama’s most poisonous effect on our government, in the long term, may well be his hyper-liberal court appointees. As soon as the new congress is seated, no Obama appointees should be confirmed to any court in the federal judiciary. Not. One.
And, the bad news is, look at what ya got!
Paul Ryan knows. http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/
Marco Rubio knows. http://www.marcorubio.com/ideas/
Joe Miller knows. http://joemiller.us/issues
The solution is not complicated and actually the simpler, the better.
Thank God. He was such a RINO and the only reason he won was fear of Gore and Kerry. McClame was an even Bigger RINO.
No doubt. Eliminate a whole bunch of Government Agencies and reduce the size and scope of government. They are the problem not the solution.
The House is a MUST.
______________________________________________________________
Exactly! We must get Pelosi out of that Speaker’s chair.
Looky here ... it is FR’s own Captain of the BDS Club and anti-war zealot.
They've put their political hopes in people voting against dems and Obama, it will be another huge mistake by the Stupid party.
If repubs win and either repeal, defund, or dismatle Obamacare then they will have done the job well. However, as we sit here today we all are "wondering" if this will happen? And it's not a question of them TRYING, they have to do it! But I don't know if they will because the GOP or the RNC has not purposed a unified plan!
So let me get this straight. Are some here of the opinion taking the house and senate is worth it to keep voting in repub traitors?
My point is put those with viable plans in the leadership positions. This is the goal of the Tea Party groups on bringing our government back to us.
As far as I’m concerned, the existing leadership for the party, Senate and House are woefully inadequate and non-starters. They had their chance to use the power we gave them to benefit the governed and wasted it on themselves and their elitist pals.
To name names, McConnell, Boehner and Steele must be gone from consideration on November 3rd. We can’t clean house with a dirty, dingy, and moldy mop.
We need two cycles of WIN to do anything important.
Don’t let the wave crest this year. It’s important to win this year, but this year isn’t the goal.
Build for 2012, and 75% control of both Houses. And then let’s end abortion and gay marriage and liberalism forever.
Absolutely not. All spending bills start in the House. Must have the House. We have enough in the Senate to spike anything really nasty.
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.