Hoyer: ‘We Are Not Asleep at the Switch’
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with a group of political reporters in Washington today to deliver a simple message: 2010, he said, is not 1994.
"We are not asleep at the switch as we were" going into 1994, Hoyer, D-Md., told us. "I don't think we're going to lose the majority — I'm pretty confident of that. Again, because our members are not sleeping at this point in time."
Democrats have grown concerned about the possibility of major losses in next year's mid-term congressional elections. Some Republicans have expressed optimism that they could even win back control of the House — as the GOP did in 1994, the last time a Democratic president faced his first mid-term elections.
Democrats' concerns have grown as the economy has struggled to create new jobs. And speculation about a "wave" election has heightened with two recent retirements of veteran Democrats in Republican-leaning districts — creating prime GOP pick-up opportunities.
But Hoyer said Democrats aren't worried about retirements, noting that Republicans are still defending more open seats next year than they are. "We've had an unusually low number of retirements," Hoyer said.
Hoyer said the main difference between this coming year and 1994 is that this time, Democrats are prepared. Candidate recruitment efforts, he said, are yielding results, including in the to-be-vacated seats, he said.
Moving into next year, Hoyer said, congressional leaders will "really focus like a laser" on job creation, as well as finding ways to control government spending — goals that, as Hoyer acknowledged, can be contradictory.
"Next year, you're going to find two major themes: jobs and fiscal responsibility," Hoyer said.
Democrats, he said, know too well what it's like to lose the majority to let something like that sneak up on them again.
"If it were November of 1993, we wouldn't be having this meeting. Why? Because in November of 1993, nobody was discussing that we may have tough races coming up in the election year of 1994. We were pretty cocksure that what was, would be, and as a result, we weren't as on-guard as we should have been. That is definitively not the case in 2009."
Obama: 'Now Is the Time For Common Sense Action' 
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives
ANY CANADIATE FOR CONGRESS SHOULD FULLY SUPPORT “CHANGE WE CAN REALLY BELIVE IN” BY PLEDGING (PRIOR TO BEING ELECTED) THAT THEY WILL FULLY WORK TO PASS PROPOSED SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT COE09E33. You can Google COE09E33 to read the simple TWO page bill which is written in simple to understand plain English.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | December 3, 2009, 11:12 am 11:12 am
Odd. So, the democrats are saying, in 1994 we decided to no longer represent the people and push as socialist agenda in blind contempt of the people and they were surprised at the results. Now they are saying that the difference between now and then is that back then they didn’t know they were in contempt of the public and didn’t care, but now, they do know and don’t care, but now it will work to their benefit. Huh. Yeah. Most people are AGAINST the trillion dollar health care bill, but hundreds of millions of our money has already been spent against us in order to advance the bill we don’t want. Obama has no clue what he’s doing in Afghanistan. Global Warming is exposed as the fraud the people were already suspicious of, but the government is still pushing that agenda upon us with Cap and Trade that we also don’t want. Obama’s DISapproval rating is over 50%, Congress’s approval rating is lower than GWB’s in his second term, most people opposed the “bailouts” of Government Motors and Chrysler, most were against the government take over of the banks, the Freddie and Fannie scam they pulled over on us, and 71% of the public is angry with what the government has done to us. It’s all Barackwards. What’s odd is that Hoyer says that all this is not unintentional, but was done on purpose. They were not asleep at the switch. Everything was done this way intentionally to advance an agenda the majority doesn’t want. What could go wrong with that?
Posted by: TexBork009 | December 3, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am
Not asleep then what about passed out to drunk from power that you’re in a stupor..
It’s gonna’ cost you dearly I’m afraid.
Posted by: Jeff | December 3, 2009, 11:31 am 11:31 am
They are waiting until next year to focus on jobs. “Gotta get health care passed and mindless spending plans in place for make believe congressional districts first and then we’ll worry about people being able to make a living”, which is what he appears to me to be saying. “In the meantime, heres some chump change in the form of food stamps and unemployment to hold you over”.
Does anyone in the press have the ###### to ask Congress why they won’t be part of healthcare reform and why Reid is trying to get staffers exempted as well?
Posted by: david | December 3, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am
Hoyer, the way things are going I think it would have been better to claim you have been asleep.
Posted by: jerry | December 3, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am
Ya got the wrong switch as usual pass this health care that does not cover anyone who has a job and I think you will wish you had been asleep,the increases in taxes will anger everone, the elderly will vote you out because of the cuts in medicare, a trillion dollars that does not add to our national dept [thats a nightmare].
Posted by: earl | December 3, 2009, 7:08 pm 7:08 pm
TexBork009 | Dec 3, 2009 11:30:55 AM
You said; … “Everything was done this way intentionally to advance an agenda the majority doesn’t want. What could go wrong with that? …
_____________
Is this a Surprise to you? If the MAJORITY didn’t want it, John McCain would have won the Election. Need I remind you, Elections have consequences!!!
Posted by: bobj72 | December 3, 2009, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm