Why do we want a Republican Senate? Aside from totally crushing the Democrats' spirit, control of the Senate means that our guys will be the chairmen for each committee and subcommittee. This means that they will have control of the calendar. It means that if Obama wants something, he'll have to negotiate with Republicans, rather than his own sycophantic party members.I totally understand that. I want a Republican congress but even more, I want a Conservative congress. Consider this:
A concrete example: Do you imagine that Elena Kagan would be a Supreme Court Justice right now if Senator Sessions had been Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Hell no, she wouldn't.
HH: And that’s very ominous for what happens next year. Let me ask you, Mark, I had John Boehner on Monday, and the transcript for the audience is posted at Hughhewitt.com, and I asked the Leader whether the Republicans were prepared to move quickly, if they understood the need for speed. Do you get a sense that the GOP, Beltway division, is in touch with, aligned with, and is committed as the country’s populist, conservative revolt wants them to be? To cut spending, extend the tax cuts, and rebuild the DOD and repeal Obamacare?How long are we going to stomach the Snowes, Collins and Grahams in our midst simply because the stick an (R) at the end of the names? These people are politicians for pity sake. They aren't going to change unless the one thing they actually care about, their re-election, is threatened. They need to know that Conservatives have gotten serious and we are in no mood to go back to the days of "play along to get along." If we don't stand up for our principals now I'm not sure we deserve to win.
MS: No, I don’t think so. I think there are some people, obviously, there are people like Jim DeMint who are committed to that, and there are some of these newly-nominated candidates who are committed to that. But I listened to Trent Lott, who cashed in his rolodex for a big time lobbyist job, and Trent Lott is saying oh, we don’t want 60 Jim DeMints in the Senate. We are going to need to do some serious hacking away at the size of the federal government. Otherwise, I think this is do or die for the Republican Party. If people vote in the Republicans on a tide of revulsion at what the Democrats have done, and the Republicans just settle back and we’re back to 2004 all over again, I think the Republican Party will have blown their last chance, and we will, I have to be cautious here, because I believe it’s a condition of my Green Card that I’m not allowed to foment armed insurrection against the government of the United States.
MS: But with that stipulation, I think we will be pushing the temperament of the people in a revolutionary direction, and that is something that the Republicans ought to understand.
The debate rages on. Dan Riehl makes my point much better than I do:
As for Republicans controlling the Senate, I'm unconvinced that would be a good thing. Control of the House and 47 - 48 Republicans in the Senate is enough to mostly block Obama. A Republican Senate comprised of Castle, McCain, Ghraham, Snowe, Collins, perhaps Kirk, and some others, will not produce what conservatives want and could lead to compromises producing even more anger at Republicans across the base.
If we continue fighting, pushing the Senate even more Right in 2012 - and possibly electing a solid Right-side President, then conservatives and Republicans may even be able to mend fences and go about building a longer-term GOP majority. Too much of a good thing too soon rarely turns out to be a good thing in the end.
Allah disagrees. Jim Geraghty does too. Me? I've got a stomach ache.