[Mb-civic] GOP Contest Guided by Lessons of Battles Past -
Washington Post
William Swiggard
swiggard at comcast.net
Fri Jan 13 03:53:00 PST 2006
GOP Contest Guided by Lessons of Battles Past
Money Talks, but Maybe In a Whisper This Time
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 13, 2006; A01
When the House speaker's job opened up in 1998, Rep. Christopher Cox
(R-Calif.) -- a telegenic policy intellectual from the nation's most
populous state -- seemed like a logical candidate. Cox certainly thought
so. He brooded over his options and mused about a possible run on CNN.
But while Cox was in the studio, J. Dennis Hastert was winning the
cloakroom. With powerful backing from Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), Hastert
-- a decidedly untelegenic, nuts-and-bolts pol from small-town Illinois
-- was working the phones, cutting deals and forming alliances. Within
hours, he locked down the most powerful job in Congress.
DeLay's decision to give up the majority leader's post for good has
thrown the House into its first leadership race since 1998, and the
lessons of the Hastert episode still echo. Congressional leadership
contests, in which politicians are both the candidates and the voters,
are a special kind of art form.
Though hundreds of the 435 House members probably have the ambition to
lead the chamber, only a few have the right combination of personal
relationships, tactical smarts and mettle to make it happen. Those who
have what it takes routinely jump the line over much more senior
colleagues in a way that was uncommon in earlier eras.
The first rule of leadership races, several lawmakers said, is that
fortune favors the bold. Reps. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Roy Blunt
(R-Mo.), the acting majority leader, barely waited for the ink to dry on
DeLay's farewell letter earlier this month before jumping into the race
for the second-ranking job.
A quick start allows the aspirants to start locking up votes, cutting
deals and discouraging others from running, as Hastert did in his 1998
triumph. It also gives them a head start in digging up unfavorable
information on the their opponents, which sources said both the Blunt
and Boehner camps are doing aggressively.
Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) did not get in early but is considering a
bid -- hoping he can shake up the race by casting himself as a
reform-minded alternative to Blunt and Boehner, both of whom have
extensive ties to lobbyists.
The quick-start strategy appears to be working best for Rep. Eric I.
Cantor (Va.), a conservative from Richmond who was the first to enter
the race for majority whip -- the third-ranking GOP post, with
responsibility for counting votes and keeping members happy. Cantor, who
arrived in the House just five years ago, had a detailed plan in place
long before DeLay stepped aside, and he implemented it immediately.
Three potential rivals were still deliberating, to their apparent detriment.
"There are a lot of people in leadership just because they were the
first in," said former congressman Vin Weber (R-Minn.), who ran Newt
Gingrich's first leadership-election bid in 1989.
But the quick entrance must be done with tact, lawmakers said, in this
case by praising DeLay's tenure, informing Hastert and emphasizing
publicly that the campaign is about saving the GOP caucus, not
satisfying personal ambitions.
The most important factor in leadership races is that the logic of
general elections -- in which candidates often vie to claim the center
-- does not apply. The GOP conference is dominated by antiabortion,
anti-gay-rights, pro-tax-cuts and pro-military members, who demand the
same of their leaders. So the 30 or so moderate Republicans in the
caucus need not apply in most cases.
In the opening hours of the race for majority leader, Boehner and Blunt
argued over who is the more purebred conservative. Blunt's allies
whispered about Boehner's prominent role in passing the No Child Left
Behind Act, which many conservatives deride for its expansion of the
federal role in local education and its high price tag. Sensitive to
this charge, Boehner told members he was more committed than the current
leaders to ending pork-barrel spending.
But ideology is not the only factor. There has been some talk of Ways
and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (Calif.) running. By the
standards of the GOP caucus, he is middle-of-the-road. His biggest
burden, say associates, is an abrasive personality -- a problem in a
contest in which popularity matters.
"He is tacitly brilliant, but he has found a way to alienate almost
everybody in the conference," said a veteran of leadership elections.
In some ways, a leadership race resembles a race for student body
president. Boehner is an affable, fun-loving member who often shares a
smoke with colleagues between votes and who is perhaps best known for
hosting popular fundraising bashes attended by lawmakers, lobbyists and
staff members. Blunt is more reserved and introspective, less of a
glad-hander than Boehner.
"I think personality plays a big role," said Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.),
who is backing Boehner.
The voting is done in secret and details of the outcome are never
revealed, so members are free to vote for their favorite candidate --
even if they had promised their vote to someone else.
One of the most popular ways to curry support is to buy it. It is an
unspoken prerequisite that a candidate has to be an aggressive
fundraiser who has campaigned for GOP candidates and, more important,
has directed tens of thousands of dollars to the campaign accounts of
his or her colleagues.
The only difference this year is how aggressive a candidate can be in
boasting about it. Boehner, Blunt and Cantor are all near the top of the
list of Republican contributors to fellow Republicans, but they are not
mentioning their money-raising skills in public in the wake of the Jack
Abramoff scandal.
Republicans ushered in what might be called a performance-based
leadership structure -- in which favors and popularity matter more than
seniority -- in 1989. Dick Cheney, then a House member from Wyoming who
was serving as GOP whip, was tapped as secretary of defense. What
followed was a memorable race between then-Rep. Edward R. Madigan (Ill.)
and a young Gingrich (Ga.), which underscored why these intramural
contests can have big consequences. Gingrich, then a back-bench
conservative seeking change inside the GOP, beat Madigan by a single
vote -- setting in motion a broader leadership challenge that five years
later would result in the Republican takeover of Congress and Gingrich's
rise to the speakership.
Victory can turn an ordinary lawmaker into a power broker. The spoils
include a bigger salary and staff, a large office inside the Capitol
instead of a small one across the street, and a seat at the leadership
table inside the speaker's office. At a time when power is centralized
in Congress, a few leaders decide what legislation to pass and when, and
which members will become chairmen and gain seats on the most
influential committees. The leaders are invited to the White House for
strategy sessions -- and are invited on the best trips by the most
influential special interests. Lobbyists flock to these members' offices
in hopes of raising money for the members and currying favor with them.
The more money they raise, the more powerful they become.
All of which explains why these races are run with sharp elbows. Blunt,
Boehner and Cantor are all following the winning formula started by
Gingrich: Create teams of close allies to secure the votes of specific
groups of lawmakers based on philosophical, geographic and generational
breakdowns. Blunt and Boehner have announced teams of about two dozen
members who are assisting their operations.
Those already in the leadership are at an advantage early on -- they
have access to a database that can help them reach colleagues and top
staff members at home or at their favorite vacation spots.
The candidates create their own database to track votes, with some
assigning numbers to track how committed they believe their supporters
are. They double- and triple-check the promised votes -- and try to
persuade House members to go public with their support. Candidates like
to secure the backing of big-name committee chairmen or leaders of
voting blocs as a show of force.
Some members who decide not to run try to form a voting bloc to
influence the race or to force concessions on the party's agenda,
committee assignments or other matters. In this case, the Republican
Study Group, an alliance of about 100 conservatives led by Rep. Mike
Pence (Ind.), is the big prize.
Pence said he will remain neutral at least until the group meets later
this month to discuss the election and consider endorsements.
Many members of Pence's group want to hold off in anticipation of the
one thing that makes these races often impossible to handicap -- the
unexpected twist. This is what Shadegg is hoping for. In this case, the
political environment is hostile to big-money Republicans, and younger
lawmakers might come to the conclusion that neither Blunt nor Boehner
would offer the clean break from the DeLay era that the party needs to
move beyond the scandal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011202020.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060113/ca976b9a/attachment.htm
More information about the Mb-civic
mailing list