I sat through an on-the-record discussion with House Republican Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) yesterday. C-SPAN covered it, if you would like to tune in. The Cliff’s Notes version is that, afterward, I asked the young lady next to me to please hold my belt and shoelaces for a while.

It is fair to say that I was not alone in the room in being less than inspired. The monumental nature of the Republicans’ task to regain the majority appears to have produced a mentality to play in the upcoming elections not to win, but to not lose. OK, possibly that’s just realistic. But, at least try and fake it. This ennui was clearly reflected in certain answers that, with all due respect to the parties involved, could have come from Bob Michel. Two examples, paraphrased (closely), include look, you’ve got to remember that the Democrats run the place (and likely will next year), not us, and they’re likely to overstep with bicameral majorities and a lefty in the White House, and we’ll be poised to strike next time.

Someone in the audience then inquired whether Mr. Boehner believes he will still be Republican Leader after the elections.

They have no plans to nationalize the congressional elections, but have told Members and candidates to do whatever works in their district. They are offering a menu of positions on five key issues, among them health care, spending, and energy. In short, they see energy as a big issue, likely the biggest issue, but not so much that they are going to go after it in any focused way. It ranks just above spending. Apparently, the Republicans actually believe that they can bridge the glaring trust gap on the spending issue in the very near-term. This is inconveivable to me, but possibly they have some polling data lulling them into the notion.

Now, many of you know (even if most of the public have forgotten) that in 2000, President Bush saw the energy-supply problem reaching the point that it was a major focus of his first year in office. Despite bicameral majorities and the plan’s many sops to undeserving constituencies in order to recruit support, the Republicans couldn’t muster an organizied effort on principle to enact anything close to a reasonable package sincerely addressing the problems of supply. Still, energy is such an obvious winner, for reasons addressed in this space nearly every day — and such an obvious and easily articulated contrast issue between Republicans and Democrats. But it sits there in the quiver while they instead notch the rather crooked arrow “sure we were reckless spenders, but we promise to cut back.”

Add the looming ”train wreck” on climate change produced by congressional action and inaction, and one simply has to wonder what our friends are thinking. Boehner defended this as simply being a poilitical decision and one he’s comfortable with. I could go on at length about the colossal seriousness of this strategic mistake, and indeed did in several drafts of a post. I will simply say that the GOP is missing the elephant in the room. Prepare for the wildnerness, my friends.