MucheDumbre

In 1994, the Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in generations.  As the new minority party, they promptly re-elected the same House leadership which had brought them to disaster.

 

They were in the minority for 12 years.

 

In 2006 the Republicans lost control of the House.  As the new minority party, they promptly re-elected the same House leadership that had brought them to disaster.

 

However just 4 years later, the Republicans have a real shot at taking the House.

 

They don’t deserve it.

 

And I say this as someone who would like to see the Republicans re-take the House at some point, but not this Republican Party.  When the Republicans got control of the House in 1994, they had been out of power in the House for a long time.  There was a lot of pent up demand for change, and Gingrich’s Contract with America was the blueprint for that change.  That Republican Party was serious about the deficit and spending cuts.  The battle between the Republican Congress and the Democratic President resulted in a balanced federal budget and arguably good governance on the federal level for several years.

 

But 2010 is not 1994.  The Republican Party leadership in the House is basically the same (minus former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who retired) leadership that was ousted in 2006.  Have they changed their ways in 4 years?

 

Congressman Pete Sessions and Senator John Cornyn had the opportunity to show what the Republicans were made of on last week’s Meet the Press.  Apparently what they are made of is jelly.

 

Mr. Gregory:  This has been a debate so far this morning about, you know, the relative merits of Republican rule during the Bush years and what this president has or has not accomplished so far.  I think what a lot of people want to know is if Republicans do get back into power, what are they going to do?

 

REP. SESSIONS:  It’s quite simple that the American people do understand the agendas that are before us.  They understand what the president and the speaker stand for, and they understand what Republicans stand for. Republicans, and especially our candidates who are all over this country, very strong standing with the American people back home, we need to live within our own means.  And certainly the projections that are ahead including health care and the projections for unemployment for a long time and debt for as far as we can see is staggering.  We need to live within our own means.  Secondly, we need to make sure that we read the bills.  These bills are so bad, which is why we don’t have a budget that is being looked at now.  The 2011 budget is staggering in terms of taxes, and the, the discipline that is lacking from this House Democratic leadership to even debate and bring the bill for the budget and appropriations to the floor is a lack of leadership.  And lastly…[blah blah blah…]

MR. GREGORY:  But, Congressman, that’s a, that’s a pretty gauzy agenda so far.  I mean, what specific–what painful choices are Republicans prepared to make?  Are they going to campaign on repealing health care, for instance, repealing financial regulation?  Would you like to see those two things done?

REP. SESSIONS:  Well, first of all, let’s go right to it.  We’re going to balance the budget.  We should live within our own means, and we should read the bills and work with the American people.

MR. GREGORY:  How do you do it?  Tell me how you do it.  Name a painful choice that Republicans are prepared to say we ought to make.

REP. SESSIONS:  Well, first of all, we need to make sure that as we look at all that we are spending in Washington, D.C., with, not only the, the entitlement spending but also the bigger government, we cannot afford anymore. We have to empower the free enterprise system.  See, this is where…

MR. GREGORY:  Congressman, these are not specifics.

REP. SESSIONS:  Oh, they…

MR. GREGORY:  And voters get, get tired of that.

REP. SESSIONS:  That, that…

MR. GREGORY:  You want to deal with entitlement spending…

REP. SESSIONS:  They are…

MR. GREGORY:  …will you raise the retirement age on Social Security, will you cut benefits in Social Security?

REP. SESSIONS:  Let, let–let’s go…

MR. GREGORY:  Will you repeal health care?

REP. SESSIONS:  Let’s go right to it.

 

Pretty clearly Sessions was clueless.  It’s as if he had not once thought about what the Republicans would do if they controlled the Majority.  The Senate did not make a great showing either.

 

MR. GREGORY:  Senator, I’m sorry, I’m not hearing an answer here on specific–what painful choices to really deal with the deficit.  Is Social Security on the table?  What will Republicans do that, that, that would give them–like ‘94, there was a Contract With America.  What are voters going to say, “Hey, this is what Republicans will say yes to”?

SEN. CORNYN:  Well, the president has a debt commission that reports December the 1st, and I think we’d all like to see what they come back with.  We’ve got three of our most outstanding members on that commission–Mike Crapo, Tom Coburn and Judd Gregg–and I–my hope is they’ll come back with a bipartisan solution to the debt and particularly entitlement reform, as you, as you mentioned.  But I…

MR. GREGORY:  But wait a minute, conservatives need a, a Democratic president’s debt commission to figure out what it is they want to cut?

SEN. CORNYN:  I said we need to do this on a bipartisan basis.  We’ve, we’ve had a, we’ve had a…

MR. GREGORY:  But what is the Republican Party stand for with regard…

SEN. CORNYN:  …we’ve had a partisan juggernaut.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

SEN. CORNYN:  Well, I mean, in, in part, what I alluded to earlier is what people are tired of is the runaway spending and the debt, and I think that is a positive agenda–smaller government, living with their means.

 

So what I get from that is that Republicans need to wait for Obama’s deficit commission, the same commission Cornyn voted against, before they can decide what they should do.

 

Then we can have a smaller government and live within our means.

 

Seriously?

 

How could any Republican in the House or Senate not be able to list off the top of their head a dozen ideas for cutting programs and reducing government?  If the Republican strategy is to wait for Obama’s debt commission, then the 2010 election is already lost, even if the Republicans win.

 

As someone who believes that our structural deficit threatens our ability to remain a major world power, it’s discouraging to hear such pablum from the Republicans, particularly when the majority of the country has recoiled from the big spending Democratic agenda.  That agenda is simply “more.”  More government, in every way, forever.  However like an Eastern Airline pilot, Chrysler auto worker, or a Greek government worker, eventually more becomes too much and the whole thing collapses. 

 

There are Republicans out there who are serious about saving the Democrats from themselves and the country from the Democrats.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who has become a YouTube sensation for his in your face Town Halls and Wyoming Congressman Paul Ryan, who developed a plan to cut the size of government, reform entitlements, and pay off the national debt, are the clear heirs to Reagan.  The Tea Party movement, much hated by the left and the media (same thing I know) are the outgrowth of sticker shock over Obamaism and the clear recognition that spending and deficits like this can’t go on.

 

But their biggest obstacle isn’t the Democrats; it’s the establishment Republicans.   Republicans who recognize that even in a center right country, the wheels of power; the media and permanent Washington establishment, are grounded on the left.  And they want to be part of it.  That’s why “conservative” former Republican Senate leader Trent Lott has no use for the Tea Partiers:

 

“We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott told the Washington Post, referring to the conservative South Carolina senator who has been a gadfly for party leadership and a champion for upstart conservative candidates. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

But Lott is no longer in the Republican leadership — he resigned from the Senate in December 2007, mid-term, just before a law kicked in that would have required him to wait two years before lobbying the Senate. So who is he talking about when he says “we need to co-opt them”?

“We” means the K Street wing of the Republican Party.

 

A K Street co-opted Republican Party, the kind that Lott, Boehner, and many other in and out of elected office prefer, would probably have a record little different than that of the Pelosi Democratic House majority.  Eh… maybe a little bit less of this or that, but still going in the same direction:  Greece.   The important signature issues, such as repealing the odious health care bill, are beyond reach anyway until after 2012 because of Obama’s veto pen. 

 

Gingrich wasn’t afraid to tell the American people what he wanted to do with a Republican House majority.  The current Republican leadership is, which tells me that their real goal is just to get their bigger offices back.

 

Republicans may need more time in the wilderness, and a clearing out of the old guard, before they are ready to lead again.  Although Democratic implosion may force Republicans back in the driver’s seat again before they are ready, if Republicans are not able to pick up the mantle of leadership and run with it, they may be back on the skids again two years later.

 

And they would have deserved it.

 

 

Related articles by Zemanta

• The GOP’s Vision Crisis (thedailybeast.com)