Jim Jordan isn’t exactly going out on a limb when he predicts Republicans will win back control of Congress this November. He doesn’t have to.
Jordan does, however, point out that his party needs to stand for something. Just being opposed to the party in power — which, granted, worked well enough for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 — isn’t enough.
“There are some, I think, in our party who think we can win this fall — I mean win by actually taking back the majority — by simply being against what they’re for. I disagree,” Jordan said in an editorial board interview Wednesday with The Lima News.
“You have to take something to the voters. It can’t be solely you’re opposed to what they’re doing. Frankly, you need that in an election context, but it’s not as important in getting elected, it’s more important if you do actually take back power and you’re in control, because then here’s what we ran on, here’s what we’re for, now we need to do it. …
“I think the voters are going to give us one more chance,” he said. “I think they are going to put us back in power in November, and they’re going to say, ‘OK, Republicans, now, behave like adults, actually reduce spending, actually do what’s best for the economy. We know you can’t keep spending at this rate. You can’t do it. Do the right thing, and if you don’t,’ I think they throw us out and we don’t come back for a long time.”
Jordan himself is safe. Democrats didn’t field a candidate to run against the two-term Republican congressman from Urbana. Had someone stepped forward, history says Jordan would have won easily — and current events more than solidify that. But Jordan also appears safe predicting the Republican win back control of Congress. His party has won races that it wasn’t supposed to have a chance of winning, and the momentum continues in that direction.
Jordan is a loyal Republican, working this year on the party’s recruitment team. He’s also a consistent conservative. So Jordan doesn’t want to hear about getting along for the sake of getting something done. He’s a partisan guy, and he’ll let you know he’s a partisan guy.
“There’s some frustration, I think, with the lack of addressing the issues in a bipartisan fashion,” Jordan said. “But, look, take the budget example. How are we going to address that in a bipartisan (fashion) when you’ve got members of Congress — and some of them are Republicans, don’t get me wrong — who want to spend and spend and spend, and you’ve got people like me who say we don’t want to bankrupt the country and ruin the future for our kids?
“We’ve got to control spending. And we also want to promote economic growth, and you can’t be raising taxes to do that. You can’t be spending like crazy to do that. Because, in fact, if that worked, we’d have been out of this mess because that’s what we’ve been doing for the last year and a half.”
Jordan has been something of a lone wolf on spending. When he was a state senator, he offered an alternative to the tax-increasing budget his party’s governor, Bob Taft, put forward. Jordan got little in the way of support. Last year, before people began tiring of runaway spending and the conservative wave caught back on nationally, Jordan — who is senior to only about 70 of the 435 members of the House — offered a balanced budget.
“We got 111 votes. Obviously, you all know we need 218 to pass something,” Jordan said. “We will get more votes. We got 111 votes … before the tea party phenomenon, before the August town halls, before New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts, we got 111 votes. I know we’ll get more this time when we offer it.”
Comment on this column and other subjects on Lederman’s blog: lederman.freedomblogging.com.