Do Republicans Want to Win a House Majority in 2010?

June 14, 2010 RSS Feed Print

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Rumor has it that there is some question in GOP circles, as the Daily Caller reported Monday, as to whether or not the Republicans really want to become the majority party in Congress as a result of the 2010 election.

To some, especially those who are already growing accustomed to how easily the words “Speaker Boehner” roll off the tongue, the very idea is heresy. Others apparently are not so sure.

To the latter group, the better outcome of the 2010 election is for the GOP to win back almost enough seats to be a majority--in order to stop truly bad legislation from passing--while keeping Nancy Pelosi in the speaker’s chair in order to run against her in 2012, when the national environment might be even better for the Republicans. [See which industries donated the most to Pelosi.]

Strategies such as this are, of course, nonsensical. Just ask President Mondale.

In an election, two months is a life time. Two years plus is an eternity. Trying to micromanage the system over several elections is a dangerous game--the ceiling can cave in and the floor can collapse at the same time. You have to strike while the iron is hot.

[See a slide show of 11 hot races in November.]

On the other hand, the Republicans in the House, rather than gird themselves for a march to majority, are for the moment behaving as though it's business as usual. Almost to a member they have, some with grumbling enthusiasm, acceded to Boehner’s ban on earmarks. Yet they continue with other aspects of normal business as though the nation is not in crisis.

Rather than go to the floor everyday with legislation that establishes meaningful contrasts to the way the Democrats have mismanaged the economy and the people’s business, members of the GOP seem content to continue to offer relatively meaningless “feel good” resolutions that are of zero legislative value but play well with the folks back home.

Case in point, the non-binding H. Con. Res 284 recognizing “The Dedication and Sacrifice of Special Education Teachers,” sponsored by Republicans Pete Sessions and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (who are both, if memory serves, in the GOP House leadership).

Now it is true that special education teachers are, in the main, very dedicated, hard-working people who often do more than is asked of them. They deserve to be congratulated and their contributions are especially worthy of praise. But with unemployment near 10 percent, the Democratic majority in Congress failing for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act to even offer a budget resolution, President Barack Obama asking for another $50 billion to bail out state and local governments, the Dow on life support and total U.S. indebtedness on track to equal one year’s GDP in just two years time, resolutions recognizing the sacrifice of this group, the contributions of that group and the very special place that good old so-and-so occupies on the national scene just do not seem to be good politics.

[See a roundup of campaign 2010 political cartoons.]

If the Republicans are serious about winning back the majority, the only resolution they should offer between now and the next election is a budget resolution, if for no reason other than to remind everyone that Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats have fallen down on the job and don’t seem to be getting up anytime soon. The Democrats are playing hardball. The GOP needs to get in the game.

Tags:
Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
Pete Sessions,
2010 election,
Barack Obama,
2012 presidential election,
Nancy Pelosi,
John Boehner,
Congress,
democratic party,
republican party

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

For what, Power?. We should be working together for a better America not who can be the most Powerful.

Our house is getting more and more divided and some of that could be as foolish as our president looks a bit different than us. Of course all other presidents who tried to do what President Obama Tried and partially succeeded in also had a hard time and most did not succeed.

Are we still in the gold rush days? or do we still have the cave man mentality?. We have automation that is putting people out of work and instead of creating more jobs or cutting working hours and raising salaries Big business and corporations allow people to collect our taxes in the form of unemployment, Other Government programs and if all else fails we just throw them out on the streets "it is just good business" But is it good for our society?.

How much of America has to be out of a job before we wise up?. How much of this planet are we going to wipe out before we do something about it?.

I believe in individuality, However in our individuality, We still need to live together without the need to control others Because as long as we control one another we will resist one another and our house will be divided and will only stand for a little while longer.

Don D. Brock of AZ 3:43PM June 27, 2010

For what, Power?. We should be working together for a better America not who can be the most Powerful.

Our house is getting more and more divided and some of that could be as foolish as our president looks a bit different than us. Of course all other presidents who tried to do what President Obama Tried and partially succeeded in also had a hard time and most did not succeed.

Are we still in the gold rush days? or do we still have the cave man mentality?. We have automation that is putting people out of work and instead of creating more jobs or cutting working hours and raising salaries Big business and corporations allow people to collect our taxes in the form of unemployment, Other Government programs and if all else fails we just throw them out on the streets "it is just good business" But is it good for our society?.

How much of America has to be out of a job before we wise up?. How much of this planet are we going to wipe out before we do something about it?.

I believe in individuality, However in our individuality, We still need to live together without the need to control others Because as long as we control one another we will resist one another and our house will be divided and will only stand for a little while longer.

Don D. Brock of AZ 3:21PM June 27, 2010

Let me ask you this question - if you expected a slide back into a deflationary Depression in 2011 or 2012, would you want the responsibility to govern? On the other side, I'm sure Barack The Magnificent wouldn't mind having a Republican Congress, so he could blame the inevitable double dip on their budget cuts, and really clean up during his reelection campaign. This in a nutshell is the whole undercurrent behind any Republican trepidation about winning a house of Congress. If you think that the economic recovery is real, you want to take the House. If you don't believe the recovery, they you don't. Conservatives are by their very nature more pessimistic than liberals, and are less likely to believe that the recovery is real. And the economics of deflationary depressions inherently favors Socialist parties. The greatest Republican fear is falling into a trap, where they take the House in 2010, and then get destroyed in 2012.

Andrew P of VA 12:14PM June 19, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Mary Kate Cary

The Catholic Bishops vs. the Nuns

The Vatican is criticizing its dedicated female servants when it should be giving them a larger role.

Latest Video

advertisement