Ok you are right , but Republicans were the vehicle of Conservatism in 94 and this brought them a mandate that they are busy giveing away for the sake of "pragmatism".
There are a number of reasons for that. For starters, 1994 was twelve years ago and things have changed in twelve years. Pragmatism and realpolitik are strategies that update as things change, they evolve and adapt to the times. If you stick to a twelve year-old manifesto then you are doomed to the political wasteland.
Secondly, much of the political capital gained in 1994 was spent in what was seen by the public as a wasted effort of vehemently attacking President Clinton to the point of bringing about articles of impeachment. It was to the point that even Republican Senators such as Fred Thompson and John Warner did not find the president guilty on all of the charges. (I'm not stating an opinion, just that it was perceived by the public at the time to be a waste
and the President's approval ratings were not bad during that time). Plus the author of much of the 1994 "revolution" went down in scandal after the President survived his scandal.
Third, it is easy to criticize from outside the seats of power (as the Democrats will surely see). You can make all kinds of spending promises and delight socially conservative-minded folks with your speeches when you are out of power. When you are in power it is far more difficult to enact such legislation and such fiscal restraints. Cutting programs is difficult, not because people don't have the will or we live in a "dependency dociety" or some such bullshit, but because the fiscal processes of the Federal Government are far more complex than that "run government like a business" or "the government budget should be like a family budget" talk implies. Plus, many of those Federal programs and operations actually exist for a legitimate reason, so you have to have an equally compelling reason to remove them.
Fourth, pork and PAC influence is difficult to prevent. I once lived in a district that had a Republican Congressman for thirty-two years. Did he author any spectacular legislation? No. Was he a talented public speaker? No. So people voted for the guy because they were mindless Republicans? No. They loved him because he got things done locally in a region that rarely received any national or even state attention. Plus, he ran an office that could get things done for you quickly (far more quickly than the dopes who replaced him - though thankfully I live elsewhere now). So, on a national level you might critique the guy as not being a good Congressman, but locally he won Republican
and Democrat votes because he was good to his constituents. Whether or not that is a bad thing depends upon one's point of view. Newt did not like him and removed him from committees when he became Speaker. The older generation of moderate Republicans loved him. Now the district has a nobody who preaches the gospel of Newt and gets nothing for the locals (plus runs a lousy office). Which was really the better?
