Ooh, such juicy intrigue! Boy, I haven’t seen this much traffic on PD since Scooter Brown was barnstorming the Massachusetts countryside in his ’87 Ford pickup. (Probably making Jason’s visitor ticker spin off the bottom of the page.) Let’s continue the chat we’ve started, and push the issue a little further.

Here’s The Question: So what do you think would be better – the Repubs gaining both chambers, or just winning the House this fall? What would be the pros/cons of either scenario?

Do not use past Nov 2010

For instance: If the R’s win both, and submit bills to repeal Obamacare et al, they probably won’t have filibuster proof majorities, even if any remaining Blue Dogs go along. The Prez would undoubtedly veto any legislation like that. The Prez could also blame all the problems on the Congress, and with all the R’s in charge, they’d be considered the incumbents to get tossed out in 2012. Obama would have pretty good Vegas odds at repeating at that point. Throw in a slowly recovering economy, and we’re talking Toast in America all over.

If the R’s only own the House, they could starve all funding for the bloated gov’t budget, and force Obama to meet them to negotiate, derailing his tax-n-destroy agenda. Downside: they’d also not get much at all past the Senate if Harry “no republican-voting-hispanic-dialect-here” Reid is in charge. They also may not be able to prevent some of the initial phases of Obamacare from wreaking havoc on the economy. Upside: they could continue the surge towards a total takeover in 2012 without appearing like the kings in the castle.

So is the O’Donnell insurgency a godsend in disguise, or the first signs of an eventual overreach by a particular movement? Which scenario gives the R’s better odds at repealing and scaling back the gov’t reach, and which give the Obawan special powers to pull more Jedi mind tricks on his gullible minions in OFA?

In the long run, is an Obama as president (yet denied his spending sprees by an R House) a better recruiting tool for a long term conservative ascendancy than a total R takeover that may be throttled in infancy?

Hmmm….

Comments

  • AWB

    Personally, I think the ideal would be for the Democratic party to narrowly hold on to both the House and Senate, although I admit the former is looking less and less likely. If the Democrats have a House membership of somewhere between 218 and 222, they will have a hard time doing anything too crazy, due to Blue Dog defection (especially since those people know they have to run with Obama in 2012 in districts that are increasingly disenchanted with him). Similarly, a senate majority of say 51-49 (which is looking increasingly possible would make it difficult for the majority leader (Reid or whoever) to push a lot of things through.

    The danger of a majority in either the House or the Senate is that Obama can turn around and blame the GOP for failures in 2012 a la Truman 1948. That kind of argument is going to sound really flat and he will look like a leadership failure if he’s had a majority for 4 years and things are still bad (or at least, less than the promised land he’d predicted).

    • dw

      Obama already uses the excuse that Republicans keep blocking stuff. I never understood how that could fly, since the Dems control both chambers. To use that excuse really shows how much he lacks support within his own party.

  • Chris

    There is another angle here, do you think that the people standing and being elected on the Tea Party fringe of the party are competent?

    A President Palin might represent your ideals but would she actually be any good at the job if elected? The problem with knee jerk reactions, and the Tea Party is still young enough to attract some knee jerk candidates is that they might not be any good. It is possible that by winning and being rubbish they set back your movement.

    I say your movement, personally I hope that the President is relected and then succeeded by a liberal and that both Houses remain Democratic for some time (though perhaps under new leadership)

    • http://cc.org/blog/waynes_discernment WSDiscernment

      My opinion on this may not give you much comfort if your question is on firm ground. But may if you have not prayed on the question and are musing over statements from the political elite.

      The system of checks and balances is not a system created to make the flow of the power easy from the federal government into our lives. Its purpose is the opposite. It creates obstacles and gridlock on each step. Gridlock is not a bad thing when a President is wrong on an issue, nobody is always correct all of the time.

      It is a nightmare for Nationalist and a Blessing to those who cherish little Government involvement.

      I do not believe we need an elite oligarchy elected in congress to make the system work, to the contrary I believe a bunch of farmers, parents, mom and pop store owners … etc … would do a better job than those who now control congress.

      So when you say are they “competent” I ask in what are you referring? Tax evasion, Cheating on their wives, creating propaganda? Is Barney Frank’s competent on cheating on his wife?

      If they have a backbone, and can discern right from wrong, not be moved by propaganda, have read the constitution and understand it, then they are more competent than the incumbents they will replace.

      If they are incompetent at working with special interests – well I don’t see that as a problem and that is the only competence that is shown by the incumbents.

      Now I would agree that electing somebody who thinks an island is going to tip over would be an embarrassment. But all that is truly important is that gridlock work the way the system designed it to. Just say “no” to more tax and spend. Just say “no” to government intrusion into the lives of the American people, Just say “no” to voting on bills that have not been read and understood. If a bill is written is such a way that Joe the voter could never understand it – vote “no.”

      • Chris

        I mean “competent” in, can they do the job. I am a lawyer by trade and a good one in my field. If I ran for office, I would be competent on certain issues, but useless at others. My brother is a policeman and is brilliant at it, but would be useless in any public office role.

        Barney Frank’s wife? That is an odd statement.

        One thing I am perfectly clear on in my mind is that private lives do not reflect on competence. Major Guiliani was a competent mayor inspite of his marital problems. Its only when those problems interfere with a job that it can be an issue, such as President Clinton.

        That said, I think that someone with a string of marriages and divorces is not necessarily competent to promote and preach on traditional family values….

    • Alaina

      I’m sure many will disagree, but I don’t think it matters whether the Tea Party candidates are competent or not. The purpose of the Tea Party, atleast in my mind is to send a message to Washington that the people are satisfied with the establishment (for either side). If elected, all they have to do is say yea or nay at the appropriate time.

      • http://cc.org/blog/waynes_discernment WSDiscernment

        I agree that was the purpose. Those involved are actual people; They are not a single group, but now they have a collective voice. Attempts to divide and destroy the movement has united groups together in mutual support.

        Some groups will stay pure to the purpose; others are making endorsements and raising money and forming political action committees. Some PACs have aligned themselves with teaparty ideas. Some may suggest the teaparty even has its own Radio and TV pundits or even there own candidates.

      • Chris

        To say “yay or nay” at the appropriate time. On who’s direction? And who sets the question? I fear you will be electing puppets who will still be run by an “elite”.

        Sending a message to Washington is one thing, will they hear it? One thing I will agree with many of you on is the dreadfullness of the way Congress is set up and run. I often fear that votes are being cast to please donors, not voters. If you could change that, then far more good could get done

        BTW, just to be clear, I am not meaning to come in and critise another country’s methods, our Parliament also has its problems!

        • Alaina

          They should be puppets and they should cast their votes in a way that reflects the majority of their constituents. That’s they way our system was designed. When elected officials dont fear the people (voters), a bloated, out of control government is what you get.

          That’s the purpose that I think the Tea Party serves. They’ve put a little fear back in to our politicians and shown that if you don’t listen to the people, there’s a good chance that you’ll lose your job.

          We still have a long way to go, but I think the Tea Party has gone a long way in helping us get there.

          • Chris

            I agree they should represent their consituents, but they need to be more than that. A good politician is not one who blindly goes with the majority, sometimes the politician needs to lead. In the UK, opinion polls say that the majority of people would bring back the death penalty, yet the politicians wont touch it, they know it is wrong.

            I am worried though that they will be puppets of their own regime, whoever emerges as their leaves. They need to be people who can think and act for themselves, I think many will just go along with the populist view or what they are told. Or worse, will fall into the hands of the paid lobbyists

            • Alaina

              So it’s the politicians that get to decide what’s right or wrong? What if it were the other way around and the majority of the people didn’t want the death penalty, but the politicians wanted to bring it back?

              Should the the politicians decide what’s right vs. wrong? Or should the people? My vote is for the people.

          • JE

            I do not want elected people who will do whatever their consituents want. I want elected people who will follow the constitution. We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. Doing whatever we want leads you down the road that one of our founders warned us about that we cannot survive once the populace believes they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury…sound like anything we are seeing.
            Or you get what happened in Germany. Interning gypsies and jews was popular so long as you weren’t one of them.

            • Alaina

              Yes, they absolutely should follow the Constitution. I never suggested they shouldn’t.

              Politicians are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. That’s what makes us a Republic. If someone isn’t representing us appropriately, then we get to vote them out and replace them with someone who will. That was the point of my previous comment was that politicians have forgotten that they work for us and the Tea Party has done a good job of reminding us of that.

              Personally, I don’t want a politician to make a decision because they think they know better than me (or the majority). I could trust a Reagan to make those decisions on my behalf, but I couldn’t trust an Obama. Therefore, I want a politician who will represent the people who elected him/her.

  • http://cc.org/blog/waynes_discernment WSDiscernment

    It is my belief that we are ready to take both house and senate; and my hope. However, I yield to a higher judgment who may say not today.

    If we are ready then we “can” restore fundamental principles of justice law and order based on the natural rights of man. I would say this would glorify God (sorry if that offends some people). And if we are not ready and refuse to do what is right in the name of greed. I would say it would not glorify God.

    If the GOP can not do what is right when it takes power then it is better not to wait until they are ready (maybe after Carl Rowe the man who took charge of the GOP and ushered in the era of Obama – after that man retires). I am simply going to do what is right and what I see needs to be done – and let the God decide where and when the pieces fall in place. Whatever happens in 2010 I will have a peaceful nights sleep.

    Pundits will say it is not possible – yawn – If I had a nickle for every time a pundit got a thing wrong …

    It is as easy as voting the right person into office to represent your vote, giving the right person the power of attorney to represent your interests in the Government.

    • http://cc.org/blog/waynes_discernment WSDiscernment

      Let me add, If we are truly ready then we would be calling the people we know both who we agree with and those we don’t agree with, and discussing the issue not to divide but to unit; I think we all want to have all of the benefits that come from freedom, we have something in common. Those we do not agree with don’t understand us or we don’t understand them – when we are not divided we are united.

      In about two weeks however the reporting cycle for FEC will end and we will begin the McCain October election cycle; anything can happen and everything will.

  • http://twitter.com/theatomicmom East of Eden

    I think the GOP winning anything would be enough of a speed bump to stop Obama’s agenda. And I think he is too much of an idealoge to ever come to the table to compromise. He is very much of the ‘my way or the highway’ mentality. And the RNC really needs to quit acting like a bunch of panty-wastes and start fighting. They do not fight at all, or even well. Dems win on message and in the PR war every single time. That seems to be a lesson the GOP cannot learn, or won’t, I don’t know at this point. This whole Boehner/Obama kerfuffle is the most fighting I’ve seen from the GOP in a while. Keep pointing out the failures of the Obama agenda, be ready to talk about it whenever, whereever. Keep it fresh in people’s minds and they’ll remember it when they go vote.

  • Liz

    Win everything would be best, purge the RNC of corrupt elitists, totally walk back spending and Obamacare and live happily ever after. Duh.

  • dw

    Ideal solution: one party controls the house, the other the senate. Neither party can screw up the country any more that way.

    Then, states refuse to participate in Obamacare, removing that issue. States step up to have even more independence, and ultimately reduce the power and responsibility of the federal government.

  • Gary Russell

    I’ve been thinking that a Republican House (no more Pelosi!!!), and a 51-49 Senate in favor of Dems (or even 50-50, with SloJoe breaking ties)would be ideal. (hopefully, with a new Senate Majority leader after Reid is whipped).

    That way, the Dems would still be considered the “party in power” (controlling the Senate and Presidency), but would still be very weakened in carrying out their far-left agenda.

    Then, in 2012, lets get it ALL with REAL conservatives.

    • Red State Eddio

      The question is whether this is a sprint, or a marathon, to the goal of a removal of all traces of Obanightmare. If it’s the second, then you don’t want a too quick victory that can’t be sustained for more than 1-2 election cycles.

      • Alaina

        It has to be a marathon. You can’t change the last 20 years in 2.

        We need Obama out and we need to clean house. Otherwise, we’re right back where we started.

      • http://cc.org/blog/waynes_discernment WSDiscernment

        It is a marathon.

        It would be good to win and impeach Obama out – but that is not likely to happen.

        If congress flips … There needs to be two years of apologetic backing up not doing what Obama wants. If it does not … There needs to be two years of apologetic backing up not doing what Obama wants but his failure testifies to the fact he is incompetent.

        Victory is when people understand, Our children will be better off if the US does not fail. They will be slaves to debt if we do. Victory in two years comes with a price. Those who do not want to fight will need to look into their children’s eyes in 10 years.

        McCain did not put up a fight in 2008.

  • Alaina

    My comment from Jason’s post:
    Alaina on 15.09.2010 at 18:58 (Reply)
    I understand all sides here, but personally, I don’t think a little housekeeping is a bad thing, even if it costs us a seat.
    I am in agreement that blue and purple state Republicans aren’t going to be as “conservative” as we would like, but we should at least be in agreement that we can tell the difference between them and a liberal (we should be able to count on their vote against disasters like cap and tax).
    It may not be a bad thing if we remain a minority this election. Even though we’d win big in November, it would be a lose-lose situation in 2012.
    Let’s say by some miracle the economy picks up. Obama will take the credit and he stays in office for another 4 years and our newly minted seats in the House and the Senate will be repainted blue.
    Let’s say the economy doesn’t pick up and voter anger continues to build, Obama and the Dems will say it’s because the Reps were a roadblock, therefore, reducing our chances to boot Obama in 2012 and maintain our thin majority.
    I say have a little faith in capitalism and trust that the economy won’t improve unless Obama changes his policies, let the Dems keep the majority (but only a thin one) as
    that will give us the best chance to boot Obama in 2012.

    So if you disagree with my comments above, what are do you think the political landscape will look like in 2012?