It looked to me like Brad was saying that the 94 Republicans did indeed fulfill the contract terms, as they only promised that they could get the issues to a vote. Which in the U.S. House is an accomplishment all by itself. Since I don't remember the details, I'm just taking Brad at his word.
The rest of the apologetics from makattak, HTG, et al, are just explaining that majority control does not necessarily mean the power to pass an whole agenda, even with a friendly president.
Precisely. From your stats, Micro:
104th congress: Senate 53-47- not filibuster proof.
105th congress: Senate 55-45- not filibuster proof.
106th congress: Senate 55-45 (and then 54-46)- not filibuster proof.
107th congress: Senate 50-50 (and then 51-49)- not filibuster proof.
108th congress: Senate 51-49- not filibuster proof.
109th congress: Senate 55-45- not filibuster proof.
The Republicans NEVER had total control of the Senate like the Democrats. As has been pointed out, not only did they have to deal with their own squishy members opposing smaller government, they couldn't even get past Democrat objections. (E.g. Miguel Estrada).
Yes, not only did the Republicans fail to shrink government, they grew it during the past 8 years.
My point was not that the Republicans were our saviours and were foiled, but that they
would have been blocked in such efforts, even if every Republican were for shrinking the government. And, as we well know, many Republicans are not for a smaller government.