September 06, 2012
Which Two Men Have Done The Most To Build The Republican Party Since World War II?
You might pick Eisenhower or Reagan, two popular two-term
presidents. But, if you look carefully at their times in office, you would have to
conclude that the party was weaker when they left office than when they came in.
But you would be right, I think, to look at presidents. The two men who have done the
most to build the Republican party did hold that office — but didn't intend to help the
I refer, naturally, to — drum roll — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
For Clinton, his biggest achievement was the 1994 election. In that election,
Republicans won control of the
House of Representatives
for the first time in 40 years.
The 1994 U.S. House of Representatives election was held on November 8, 1994, in
the middle of President Bill Clinton's first term. As a result of a 54-seat swing in membership
from Democrats to Republicans, the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the
United States House of Representatives for the first time since 1954.
And there's much more in that Wikipedia article, though I have to warn some of you
that Republicans are likely to find the reading more pleasant than Democrats.
We can't give Clinton all the credit for the Republican gains, of course, but I think it
fair to give him most of the credit. (Oddly enough, many Democrats are fond of the
man, in spite of what he did to their party. I have no explanation for that, so I won't
try to guess why they like a man who led them to such a smashing defeat.)
For Obama, his biggest achievement — so far — was the 2010
election. We have to give him most of the credit, for example, for these Republican
gains in the
Republicans regained control of the chamber they had lost in the 2006 midterm elections,
picking up a net total of 63 seats and erasing the gains Democrats made in 2006 and
2008. Although the sitting U.S. President's party usually loses seats in a midterm
election, the 2010 election resulted in the highest loss of a party in a House midterm election
And Republicans did very well in state legislatures, where they now hold the highest number
of seats since
(Oddly enough, many Democrats are still fond of Obama, in spite of what he did to their party
in 2010. I have no explanation for that, so I won't try to guess why they like a man
who led them to such a smashing defeat.)
Are Republicans grateful to Clinton and Obama? Not as far as I can tell.
(That may seem small minded, but most Republicans may share my view that each man damaged
the nation in his first two years as president.)
Even so, Republicans should at least recognize the help that Clinton and Obama
gave their party. Whether other Republicans share that recognition with their
Democratic friends is up to them, of course.
Cross posted at
Jim Miller on Politics.
I predicted that Obama, if elected, would be very very good for the Republican party.
I am immodest enough to say that I think that prediction has held up very well.)
Posted by Jim Miller at September 06, 2012
03:07 PM | Email This
Conservatives want the best for the United States of America.
We could not care less what is best for the GOP as it is constituted the past couple of decades.
Today's GOP seems beyond tone deaf as the Reagan landslides are proof positive that RINO blathering is worthless. We have a center right country and the pro politicians just cannot stand it. Screw them.
Interesting take, Jim. Not sure if we can simplify it down to your perceived conclusion, but at least its thought-provoking enough to entertain. My fear is that the current democrat party lurches even further to the left (by all accounts, their convention these past 3 days have are proof it will) . As they lurch to the left and the right stays in the middle, we get marginalized as being extremist if we don't move a little to the left in an effort to "compromise". Mainstreaming leftist extremism is what the democrat's have (with the aid of the 3rd estate press) a particular affinity to do.
When they can control the narrative, they can control the thoughts and minds of those who really don't pay attentiion to politics until they look around one day and say "what the helll happened to my country, man?". By then, it's too late.
A: Richard Nixon and Karl Rove.
(I was going to mention George W. Bush, but I could not find a Republican who admitted to ever having heard the name.)
George W. Bush and Karl Rove united the Democrat party in 2006, but Obama united the Republic Party in 2010.
The takeaway is that the Republics had better keep in mind how that occurred in the first place or else history could repeat itself in 2014 or 2018. If the Republic party is so fortunate to have a majority in Congress and the White House - no undeclared wars, no big increases in debt and no big recessions over the next 8 years.
Well, dimebag... I've heard the name and met the man... twice.
And with that scumbag in the White House now, there isn't a day that goes by that I wish Bush still wasn't there.
Unfortunately, politics isn't just a game, seeing which team wins elections.
I imagine Democrats have very happy because Obama has achieved a lot of what they have wanted and has set a course for government to control every aspect of life.
Winning the house back didn't do anything to stop it.
7. No it didn't stop it, JeremyR, but it did prevent any more catastrophic boondoggles like Swindle-Us or Obamacare and forced Dimocrats to (1) employ unconstitutional means (no congressionally approved budgets) to fund their wealth-redistribution machine and (2) (mis)use the executive order to further loot, pillage and (fiscally and morally) bankrupt our country.
8. While Bill Clinton was a polarizing force, Newt Gingrich was the catalyst that formed that groundswell into the 1994 tsunami.
9. And with that scumbag in the White House now, there isn't a day that goes by that I wish Bush still wasn't there.
Your ability at keen political analysis continues to be the only one of your attributes which competes with your skills in the use of classy language.
But, thanks for reminding us again about what type of person voted twice for W., and would do so again.