Talking heads, pundits and bloggers have been buzzing for months now at the prospect of Republicans in Congress releasing a new version of the Contract with America, the set of legislative proposals Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders cobbled together in the lead up to the 1994 election. While that election saw Republicans sweep into control of the House for the first time in 40 years, and take the Senate, 2010 is not 1994. Nationalizing that election made sense, nationalizing this one reeks of opportunism and a desperation for the Washington establishment to claim relevance.
In 1994, everyone knew Republicans were going to do well, but they didn’t know how well. The battle with President Clinton and liberals over Hillarycare, Congressional corruption and other issues soured a large portion of the nation on Democrats. It was a harmonic convergence of events that set the ball on a tee for Republicans. No one can say whether or not the Contract was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but it is given so much credit that logic dictates that at least some of it is undeserved.
While the ideas in the original Contract were put on paper by people from inside Washington, they had been outsiders their whole careers. None in the House had ever served in a Republican majority. Those drafting the new “Contract” have, and lost it by becoming what they ran opposing. It hasn’t been released yet, but the rumors are circulating about its content and release date, possibly as soon as this Thursday. Regardless of what it says, the message it will send, and the trouble for campaigns, campaigns doing quite well without it, is that it this election is about Washington. It could be the unforced fumble as the clock is running out of the 2010 campaign.
Right now Republican candidates, particularly Tea Party candidates, are doing remarkably well in every poll, running on what makes sense for their particular race without significant help from Washington, and, in many cases, against the desire of Washington. This does not sit well with those inside the beltway.
Washington is a town where favors, almost more than our tax dollars, are the currency of choice. Loyalty is as prized as gold. This year the election is as much about a rejection of Washington as it is a rejection of the Democrat’s agenda.
A large group of Republican nominees this year are as much about anti-Washington sentiment as they are anti-Democrat. Washington insiders drafting a campaign platform in an attempt to obtain relevance in races where they are not involved or needed can only cause problems for candidates running well.
The authors of the new Contract say they will not have candidates sign the document, which is even more problematic. They know they would have difficulty getting a bunch of anti-Washington candidates to sign a document of Washington, so they want to skip that step. By doing so, the Contract will automatically be assigned to every candidate with an R after their name by the media.
Each candidate, no matter what issues they are running on, will be asked and forced to answer questions on an agenda on which they had no input. It would alter, even if temporarily, the focus of their campaign.
The story will go from what each campaign wants to talk about to whether or not they support what Republican leaders propose. On the issues they do, their opponent will say they’re of Washington. On the issues they don’t, the media narrative will be about a rift in the Republican Party. It’s no-win.
What matters in Washington may not matter or play well in Kentucky, or California, or Delaware. But candidates won’t be able to accept or reject portions of the Contract, they’ll have to answer each and every point. To hijack campaigns NOT wanting guidance is the ultimate in selfishness.
These candidates are doing a fine job of defining themselves and the issues in their races, which has Washington nervous. If a bunch of new Members come to town without loyalty to Republican leadership, that could cause problems for Republican leaders. That is why they are seeking to insert themselves into these races, and it’s exactly why they shouldn’t.
If Republicans want to regain a majority in the House or Senate this year Washington has to stay out of any race they aren’t invited to join. Unfortunately, that is not the nature of Washington, so they’re set to shoehorn themselves into every race with this new Contract. Should Republicans take the majority, look for current Members to claim as much underserved credit as humanly possible. Should they not, look for them to blame the candidates for not being able to articulate a message imposed upon them by Washington egos. The status quo will be defended either way.
You can stalk Derek Hunter on Twitter by clicking here.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.