Posted on 05/26/2014 6:23:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I don’t quite feel it yet. The much-anticipated 2014 Republican landslide, that is.
I can see its possibility on the horizon; I can read the poll numbers; I can watch even the liberal media start to take President Obama to task for the fiasco at the Department of Veterans Affairs. But what I hear from people isn’t yet a determination to “throw the bums out” or an excitement about the possibility of doing so, but instead more of a fear that the bums might find a way to hang on and a wistful hope that those fears are wrong.
It’s not really defeatism in the Real America outside of Obamaland, but it’s certainly not yet a “can do” spirit, either. People in everyday life are completely fed up with the federal government, but they don’t feel empowered to change things. They don’t really think the system responds well to the popular will anymore; they think it is rigged in favor of insiders, moneymen, and Obama’s legions of politicized bureaucrats.
And most people seem not to be enthusiastic about the idea of Republicans taking charge of the whole of Congress; the GOP isn’t a favored option but merely the option that happens to be available to battle the continued abuses of Obama’s lackey, Harry Reid. Most people don’t trust Republicans to accomplish much other than a rearguard action to stop the worst of Obama’s transgressions.
This is quite different from how things felt on this same weekend in 1994, when the so-called Gingrich Revolution was brewing. Less than two weeks after the Democrats romped in the 1992 elections, I had written a memo to my then-boss, Representative Bob Livingston, predicting that Republicans would be seriously competitive in 1994 and could win their first House majority in 40 years. By Memorial Day weekend of 1994, Livingston, responding to tremendous pro-Republican energy at a series of rural town meetings, was flat-out guaranteeing a GOP sweep. More than five months before Election Day, the reformist tide already was swelling noticeably.
So, what is different this time around? It’s not that the polls today don’t look promising; they do. It’s not that the anger at Washington is any less; indeed, it’s probably even greater now than it was in 1994. Still, I think anybody on the hustings would agree that there’s a wariness now, a lack of optimism, and a cynicism about the system itself that didn’t exist to anywhere near the same degree 20 years ago.
Back then, too, the right side of the political spectrum was far more unified. Sure, the old establishment was a bit nervous about the Gingrich tactics, but Minority Leader Bob Michel not only didn’t stand in the way but actually provided encouragement to the insurgency. Meanwhile Gingrich, Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour, National Republican Congressional Committee chief Bill Paxon, and National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Phil Gramm were largely on the same wavelength and working well together. It was a far cry from the internecine wars of the past several years.
Also, the public had no recent example of bad Republican management of Congress to dissuade it from entrusting the GOP with power. Indeed, despite the elder Bush’s failure to win reelection, the glow of the Reagan years remained strong. That Republican glow was enhanced by signal Republican successes in opposition in 1993 and 1994, with young leaders like the “Gang of Seven” (led by Rick Santorum and, yes, John Boehner) having successfully exposed and helped fix Democratic ethical breaches while Republicans also defeated Hillarycare and warded off the worst of Bill Clinton’s tax-hike proposals.
No, the Contract with America hadn’t even been drafted yet, but the idea of a unified, positive message already had taken hold among Republican candidates. Conference chairman Dick Armey and his politically astute staff led by Kerry Knott and Ed Gillespie (who helped plan the Contract while enjoying the hospitality of conservative leader Morton Blackwell) were handling internal communications quite effectively, helping incumbents sing off the same page.
Revisiting all of this is not just an exercise in nostalgia. Instead, it is part of a warning against overconfidence, along with some lessons of what we still must do if Republicans are going to build on their House majority and retake the Senate.
First, whatever divisions exist, those right of center should keep their eyes on the ball. The political enemies aren’t RINOs or (for moderates) radical tea partiers; the enemies are the Obamites who threaten, to an extent far greater than Bill Clinton did, to trample the Constitution and our liberties. No primary campaign should scorch the earth so badly that any unified effort is impossible afterward. And no sour grapes should be excused from whichever camp loses each race. If Bob Michel and Newt Gingrich could work in tandem, so can and should all right-leaners this fall. (Relatedly, proposals utterly and bitterly divisive on the right, such as immigration “reform,” should not, not, not be pursued.)
Second, candidates must find positive messages, just as the purveyors of the Contract did back in 1994. Don’t just blast the VA scandal; push the idea of veterans’ health cards usable at private facilities just like a Medicare card is. Don’t just gripe about Obamacare; pick one or two of the most easily explainable parts of the Scalise bill or the Burr-Coburn-Hatch plan (or another conservative health reform) and run with it.
Third, emphasize ethics. Just as Santorum and Boehner did in the early 1990s (and as the first part of the Contract highlighted), conservatives should understand that the public thinks the very process is broken, and voters want evidence that elected officials will formally limit their own ability to game the system.
Finally, don’t be frightened of taking bold stands. (Repeat: bold — not reckless.) The American public is fed up with business as usual. It wants significant change, without rancor but still with energy and firmness.
Conservatives cannot be overconfident that public disgust with Obama will lead to victories on the right. As 6 million expected voters proved in 2012, Republican leaners can easily choose just to stay home and avoid the poll lines. Indeed, they might be far more inclined to do so than they were in 1994 because, unlike 20 years ago, they also have a bad taste in their mouths from Republican excesses and failures.
Conservatives must offer them something sweet, something hopeful, in order to take away that taste and sell the Right’s recipe.
— Quin Hillyer is a contributing editor for National Review.
The GOP-e declaration of war on the conservative wing of the base was a brilliant tactical move—NOT.
The Republicans may hold the House—for all the good it’s done in stopping Obama since 2010—but they will not take the Senate.
Here is an example: No Obamacare if we had the Senate or the House in 2008. Even a GOPe dominated no Ted Cruz Senate would have killed it dead. Deader than a doornail. Same with the House.
It is simply naive to believe that we can have a Tea Party dominated House and Senate in one election cycle. It is not going to happen. We are never going to be happy with every single GOP senator or House member. But it escapes me why the members of this forum are willing to give up on the idea of achieving a majority in both house of Congress because they they think "nothing will change".
Personally I'm willing fight to elect good conservative candidates. That's what we are about here. But sitting home and letting the Dems keep control of the Senate in simply crazy if not childish.
The GOP leadership in the Senate does not want to get rid of Obamacare. They supplied critical procedural votes to keep it going. They then 'voted against' it with meaningless show votes, but they provided the critical cloture votes.
It's naive to ignore the liberal republican complicity in Reid's agenda.
It will take time, but every liberal republican needs to be destroyed. Or the republican party needs to be destroyed.
I am not a republican. I am a conservative, fighting for conservative governance, not for liberal republican governance.
/johnny
November is a long way off, and our voting system is corrupt.
Logically this leads to GOPe Congressman and Senators being replaced by Democrats. Seems to me that is not a path we would want to follow.
You may object that this is not what you want. You want, as do I, to see real conservative Republicans in those seats. That's fine. We certainly agree there.
But not voting for GOPe types in a General Election helps the Dems way more than it helps us. We get to "send a message" to Washington D.C. The Dems win the seat in Congress. Bad, bad trade.
Fight the good fight in the Primaries. Vote for anyone with an R after their name in the General. It is crazy not to do so.
Think about this. Assume we have a bunch of useless GOPe types in the Senate. They can't be trusted. But we have Ted Cruz as Senate Majority Leader and a 52/48 advantage. I can live with that.
It's that simple.
Having republican majorities has not historically produced conservative governance, so I don't particularly care about liberal republican majorities.
I won't be voting for Cornyn in the general because he provided the critical procedural vote to remove the debt limit. Liberal republicans enable Reid's agenda.
You can say what you want, but you won't convince a lot of conservatives to vote for your liberal republican candidates. That time has passed.
/johnny
Well, the so called "tea party" had a number of defects - you're correct that they did not call out the banksters and they did not have a comprehensive theory of the modern state.
But their biggest problem was they were honest, loyal, patriotic, open-faced, and incredibly naive.
They were like the zeks in the GULAG, who, while dying murmured with their last breaths, "If only Stalin knew…".
They still believed that our constitution and our representative institutions were working, or could work, if only they realized what the people wanted.
This, of course, is absurd.
They wanted and expected an open door and a listening ear from the Uniparty, and what they got instead was a punch in the face, followed by a coordinated scheme of defamation and demonization. Their neighboring sheep, instead of following like they had started to do, now turned on them and started bleating to the Master to come and chase them away.
One of the best signs in 2010 at the Capitol was, "We came unarmed - this time".
Farewell, tea partiers. The Sons of Liberty are going to have to take it from here.
There aren't ten GOP Senators who would vote for Cruz as majority leader. There probably aren't five.
And in your 52-48 scenario (very, VERY optimistic, IMO), there are more GOP Senators who would vote for Harry Reid than who would vote for Ted Cruz.
And what did the GOP do in ‘94? Used their contract with America like a piece of toilet paper. Thy became bigger spenders than the DNC.
It’s all a lie. Always has been, always shall be. The LAST hope this country truly had was the GOP in ‘94, and they completely let this nation down.
I have yet to be convinced the electorate is all that thirsty
For change. The GOP will likely keep the House and gain a net of three or four vacated Senate seats, but I seriously doubt we’re going to see these wild-eyed predictions of a “tsunami” come to pass.
But ... one last question. With this scenario:
You don't vote for Cornyn.
He loses by one vote.
The Dems retain the Senate majority.
Question: Are you happy camper? Would you change your vote if you could?
The 900 pound gorilla not mentioned is amnesty/immigration. When the house does amnesty the party will die. They will do it this year.
The 900 pound gorilla not mentioned is amnesty/immigration. When the house does amnesty the party will die. They will do it this year.
/johnny
Answering your question: I would vote for the GOP candidate (so you know where I stand on your argument.
However, I think there’s a bigger deal going on now, and it involves the MSM treatment of President Obama and the Democrat administration generally.
You see, I’ve never bought the “Contract With America” explanation for the 1994 rout of the Democrats. Instead, I blame the MSM, and have since said many times in forums like this that the MSM would never, ever, again repeat the mistake that they made in 1994. That mistake was to publish reasonably honestly the various foibles of the Clinton presidency (pre-Monica). When he grounded all the planes at an airport for an hour to get a several-hundred-dollar haircut on the tarmac by a famous stylist, they reported it. When Hillary tried to fashion Hillarycare behind closed doors, they reported it.
I recall going into that election pinching myself to see if I was really awake, finding it hard to believe that the MSM was letting us see the true Clintons (both of them). And, as a result, I was not surprised to see the extent of the devastation the voters unleashed on the Democrats, though I believe it was mainly being leveled at the Clinton duo, not the legislators. They were, however, the only targets available at that time so they took the fire.
A similar process just might unfold this time around. The MSM is starting to show cracks in their Obama Armor. While the AP scandal should have done it, or the NSA snooping, it’s apparently coming to a head with the VA scandal. If that doesn’t really do it, rest assured, there’ll be at least one or two more scandals by November.
So why fold the MSM tent around Obama now? They have to cleanse themselves of their mistake supporting this clown for so long, and they have to have it over and done with well before 2016 when they will again be foursquare for Hillary (or whoever ends up the eventual Democrat candidate.) If they don’t do that, they know full well that Obama will drag them down along with him and that not a soul will trust their coverage going into 2016. They have to do what they have to do to regain some semblance of credibility. (I know, they’ll never have any, but 40% of the country still listens to them.)
My conclusion: If the MSM folds on Obama, and if it happens over the next few months, we will have another 1994 wave election in November. If that doesn’t happen, I still think there’s a good chance of the Senate going GOP, but a wave will be unlikely.
Agreed. Don’t count you chickens before they hatch. The fox just might decide to have an omlete.
It's naive to ignore the liberal republican complicity in Reid's agenda.
Bingo, Johnny.
If we fail to recognize these facts then the Republic is doomed.
This could never happen with the GOPe types you elected.
I suggested that Dingy Harry would never have changed the Senate Rules if he though there was a chance they would lose the Senate. I opined that this was because they have Vote Fraud in place to prevent it. Now they have a backup plan, the GOPe will now, if they capture the Senate, reinstate the Senate Rules that Harry changed.
They win either way, and we lose either way.
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.