April 26, 2007

JOHN HINDERAKER wonders if the Republicans might lose more seats in 2008, perhaps even enough to give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. It’s awfully early yet, but it’s certainly possible, especially given the cluelessness and self-servingness of the GOP congressional delegation to date.

Democrats — who mostly made other issues than the war their priority in the ’06 election and who lost (Ned Lamont, anyone?) when they put the war up top — are now claiming that the elections were a mandate for surrender. Republicans may be tempted to endorse the idea that the elections were a referendum on Iraq, too, because that would get the GOP Congress off the hook for its miserable performance on, well, just about everything else. In fact, however, the elections were very close, and regardless of the war the GOP could have at least retained the Senate with only a very modest improvement in performance — an improvement almost no one was willing to make.

And they could be doing a lot more to put the Democrats on the spot if they were willing to back up Tom Coburn’s anti-pork crusading and the like, instead of being “brothers in pork” with Democratic incumbents. But the GOP delegation is, for the most part, just as corrupted as the Dems — and they managed to get that way faster — and there’s no longer any stomach for challenging the status quo. Most of them, it seems, would rather be a fat, happy minority than do what it takes to win (or even keep) a majority. (See this about Trent Lott). And if that’s what they want, that’s probably what they’ll get.

UPDATE: Bob Krumm writes: “My guess is that whichever side’s leader portrays himself as the most anti-status quo, will win not just the White House, but a larger majority of both houses next year.”

Comments are closed.
InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.