There is a big difference between now and when the GOP last controlled the House.

[deacon]

The last time under bush they held the senate also which enabled them to use smokescreens. I'm sure we all remember how they would raise some hell to draw a focus on one particular thing (war for instance) and proceed to sneak in legislation through the "back door."

In the first two years under Obama they chose to offer no ideas and simply say "NO!" to everything (the easy way out and cowardly)- to just be critical and cause enough havoc where they didn't have to answer questions. And, they got away with it.

It's not the same this time around. They won't be able to sneak things in through the back door.

[DFLforever]

1. If the President is running a defensive operation

as he will be the next two years, it's better to have the Senate then the House.
It's much better backup in terms of executive appointments, judgeships, and executive privilege of various sorts.

Plus the Senate can knock down anything they don't like coming over from the House or simply ignore it forever.

I don't like losing our majority in the House but this is nowhere as bad as it could be.

[Cosmocat]

3. They can't get any seriously damaging legislation passed ...

either way, but the House ... They (being the lunatics they are) now have complete free reign to f--- with the president in every way possible - funding to his office and to the bills passed the last two years, investigating/hearings on every stupid friggen thing ...

Giving these clowns ANY lever of power is a disaster, but they can reek a lot more damage in the house, IMO ...

They already tied up countless appointments with a 41 seat super minority in the senate - having the majority would not be a lot different ...

[blitzburgh55]

2. and for as big a failure

the right claims Obama to be, it's pretty bad that they couldn't take the senate too. Obama is in a much better position now than were other two term presidents. Such failure!