Both Ramesh Ponnuru, [ How to Win by Losing, NYT] and Jonah Goldberg [If Demos were to win control of House, it would boost GOP] seem to think that a period in opposition would be good for the Republicans. This has given rise to headlines like Right-wingers seek 'dose of the Democrats' to rescue Republicans and Beat Us, We Need It, Say Republican Conservatives.
Now, while it's true that Republicans probably deserve to lose, at this point in history, the Republican house happens to be the only thing standing between American and the Bush/Senate Amnesty bill.
His specific objection to Jonah Goldberg's idea that "One exception[to the political benefits of a loss of the House] might be immigration, but that would hand conservative Republicans a dream issue for 2008."is a patriotic rather than a political one:
Immigration reform is a big idea—it sets twelve million new citizens on the path to citizenship, changing the composition of the electorate that will then vote in future elections. It also acts as a beacon for everybody in Latin America, to say "Hey, come to America and one you'll get amnesty too," it could fundamentally change the fabric of our nation—it's not just something you let slip through and so you'll have an issue later.
Good point. Why can't the editors of National Review see that?