Lusting after power: The attack strategies of the House Republicans

Guest Post by Michael J.W. Stickings

As Democrats settle into majority status in the House — and I do hope the contentious battle between Murtha and Hoyer is soon settled amicably and put behind us — Republicans are strategizing on how best to bring them down over the next two years. And that strategizing is playing out in the contest for the position of minority whip between incumbent Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Shadegg of Arizona. The Hill reports:

Leadership candidates have highlighted their plans to hammer the incoming Democratic majority for ethical lapses, fiscal irresponsibility and legislative mismanagement, borrowing from a playbook those same Democrats used with great success to unseat the Republican majority.

Leadership hopefuls have made regaining the majority the central thrust of their campaigns, but rank-and-file members are debating as to which candidates can successfully implement their attack strategies as well as the particulars of the individual plans.

Blunt has even put together a strategy memo entitled “24 Months to a New Republican Majority — A Plan for Victory”. The Hill calls it “a detailed roadmap,” which seems like excessive credit for what is really just the same old vicious partisanship from a party that has been reduced to rubber stamping President Bush’s executive power grab on issues like torture and domestic wiretapping, pushing plutocratic tax cuts, and latching on to non-starters like Social Security privatization. And so we are told that, for example, that the memo “outlines amendments [Blunt] would offer to projected votes implementing pay-go rules in the budget process, raising the minimum wage and allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies”.

No, can’t have any of that. For the Republicans, all that matters is power. They lost it and they want it back. Evidently, though, they don’t quite get why they lost it, why the American people turned on them in such overwhelming numbers.

Democrats in the House, as well as in the Senate, will face relentless attacks over the next two years. But they are now an effective check on presidential absolutism on Iraq and the war on terror and they have an agenda that works for the American people on issues like national security, health care, the minimum wage, and stem-cell research. If the Republicans want to block that agenda, if they think that blocking it will return them to power, that’s fine with me, politically speaking. It’s a losing strategy. The American people will be hurt by it — and therein lies my objection to it — but it will also expose the Republicans for what they are. Just let them run on it in ’08.

“Leadership candidates have highlighted their plans to hammer the incoming Democratic majority for ethical lapses, fiscal irresponsibility and legislative mismanagement, borrowing from a playbook those same Democrats used with great success to unseat the Republican majority.”

Damn, they is dumb. That playbook only works when you have a fairly new caucus with most of the miscreants who caused you to lose go away, not the same old game. Otherwise, it is what some would call, “Kettle, Meet Pot. Pot meet Kettle.”

  • Blunt wants to play the Clinton-era game of holding Dems to higher ethical standards than Repubs can hold themselves to. But what will play out in a bigger way – oversight hearings detailing how the Bush Administratration was complicit in the squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq, or a Repub investigation into a Dem accepting a meal valued at over $50?

    As far as Blunt’s desire to attach poison pill amendments to good legislation, let hope the new rules committee puts the kabosh on those. Though we got some new adults in Congress, we didn’t weed out all the immaturity yet, as Blunt proves.

  • I say we address long term Republican “strategies” after January, but right now I agree with Russ Feingold that this could be a “dangerous” lame duck session…

    We need to be in full assault mode and block anything the Republicans try to shove through (starting with Bolton and Bush domestic wiretap immunity). And we need to not shy away from the fight that Bush picked. And we need to say it loudly and without fear. Bipartisanship my $#@.

  • WHICH READS BETTER?

    THIS: “If the Republicans want to block that agenda, if they think that blocking it will return them to power, that’s fine with me, politically speaking. It’s a losing strategy.”

    OR THIS: If the Republicans want to block that agenda, if they think that blocking it will return them to power, that’s fine with me. Politically speaking, it’s a losing strategy.

  • Here’s what’s different for me: Now we have some power to fight back. The Republican attack machine is still nasty, but now they can’t implement it as well. I don’t worry so much about people believing their lies as I did before.

  • Wow! Blunt puts of a little bitty memo and the Republicant’s think they are saved.

    Clarke and the Clintonistas hand a detailed memo on Terrorism to Condi Rice and she says they are responsible for 9/11/01.

    Muddlied thinking here.

  • This cuts both ways.
    I propose that the Dems start a “Death by a Thousand Cuts” policy toward the Republican’ts.
    Imagine a whole lot of Whitewater cases (but with substance). Think of all of the investigations that are warranted (pun intended) for the Bush crime family & the complicit repub congress.
    The best defense is a good offense, and the last 6 years have given the Dems plenty of ammo.

  • We should be BOLD in pushing our agenda because, as you point out, it is what the people FAVOR. Let the Republicans say no, let Bush veto measures that overwhelming majorities of Americans want. Yes, let them run on their *obstructionism* in 2008.

    Especially, Democrats need to be bold in pushing universal healthcare. The time is now. No wimping out, folks. Do it.

  • Comments are closed.