So Tom DeLay is gone and the GOP needs a new House Majority Leader. It's a plum job that not just anyone can do. The basic responsibility of the job is to organize votes to pass the legislation your party wants to support. That means you've got to have some time on the hill, some deal making and even arm-twisting skill and enough personality to hold the occasional press conference and not get laughed at.
The GOP has almost 300 Congressmen to pick from, so they ought to be able to come up with some truly outstanding candidates to replace DeLay. I bet they have some guys with real charisma and great original ideas to guide the House on to new and better things. Surely their new Majority Leader will be their best and brightest. Right?
Well, apparently there's a dearth of great leaders among the hundreds of Republicans in Congress, because all they could find were three uniquely undistinguished clones: John Boehner (OH), Roy Blunt (MO) and John Shadegg (AZ).
Boehner and Blunt are so similar on the issues that if you compare their ratings from different interest groups they are literally within 5 or fewer percentage points on every issue and usually rated exactly the same. They both get a 20 from the NEA, a 92 from the NRA, 100 from Americans for Tax Reform, 0 from the ACLU and a -3 from NORML. But excitingly, on the Liberty Index from the Republican Liberty Caucus they are a dramatic 3 points apart. Boehner has a 69 average and Blunt has a 66. Both have a good number of terms under their belt. Boehner has 8 and Blunt has 5. Both have basically the same positions on major issues. They're for the Iraq War, against abortion, against eminent domain seizures and for the Bush tax cuts. Boehner's recent pet issues are education and protecting pensions. Blunt's pet issue is agriculture. Both candidates also received substantial contributions from controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The big differences between these two virtual clones are in their backgrounds more than their voting records. Boehner's from the north and Blunt's from the south. Boehner is a Catholic (very fashionable right now) and Blunt is a Baptist (always suspect). Boehner is chairman of the Education Committee and Vice Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Blunt holds no legislative committee positions, but he's Majority Whip which means he's acting Majority Leader right now and sort of puts him on deck for the job if things were actually done that way. In fact, only two Majority Whips have become Majority Leader in the last 100 years.
Article comments
1 - Maurice
"I believe that a majority of Republicans in the House understand the need for real, thorough reform...We must renew our commitment to the principles that won us a majority in the first place: fiscal discipline, smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, returning power to the states, and greater personal freedom".
Wow. That is as inspiring as anything Newt Gingrich ever said.
2 - Dave Nalle
Shadegg can certainly talk the talk. We'll see if he gets a chance to follow through on any of it. I have to agree that given the sad state of the GOP in congress these days I also yearn for the good old days of Newt's leadership.
Dave
3 - Alice
I am shocked, shocked... to learn that lobbyists are bribing our public officials...
Can this really be true?
4 - Alice
It can't be true... we would have heard about it before now...
5 - Dave Nalle
It's all in how you define the word 'bribe'.
Dave
6 - Alice
It's no mystery,
A bribe is something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
7 - Dave Nalle
Ah, but aren't campaign contributions money given to candidates because you expect them to vote a particular way that their opponent isn't as likely to vote? That's awfully close to a bribe too, isn't it?
Dave
8 - Scott
What the Republicans really need to get their priorities in order is a major smackdown in this year's election. Giving up control of the House or Senate will definitely force some re-evaluations.
Dave, I know you're no fan of Democrats being in control (or Democrats in general) but I think a few years of Democrats controlling at least one of the branches of Congress could actually strengthen Republicans.
9 - Dave Nalle
Probably true, Scott. The government does the least damage when both parties control one of the houses of the legislature.
I don't think the Dems are going to get control of either house though, Scott. There aren't enough Senate seats up for grabs for them to pull it off and the GOP has too much of an edge in the House.
The other problem is that if the democrats get control of one house it means that if Bush actually manages to introduce any of the things he promised in 2004 they'll go nowhere at all, which would be tragic. We need social security privatization and tax reform desperately.
This could all change if the Democrats came up with ANY kind of positive message or agenda, but that seems to be contrary to their nature.
Dave
10 - Scott
I think Democrats will at least gain seats in both house and senate. Whether it will be enough to control one of those, who knows. As Charlie Cook pointed out, even if the Democrats gain seats but not a majority the Republicans retain power but won't have a real working majority with which to get anything done anyway. And if Democrats do grab one or both houses, it will be narrowly and they will not have a working majority either.
Two more years of gridlock basically is what I'm predicting.
11 - Dave Nalle
Even if the Dems got a majority in both houses it wouldn't give them absolute control.
But the bad news no matter what is that the American people are not going to get full scale reform of taxes and social security which we were promised.
Dave
12 - Alice
"American people are not going to get full scale reform of taxes and social security which we were promised."
Promised?
Ha!
13 - lumpy
I remember that promise too.
But what worries me more is that some of the tax cuts might be repealed sticking it to the middle class yet again in the great democrat tradition.
14 - Dave Nalle
Well, if you're worried about tax relief and fiscal responsibility Shadegg is the only one who seems at all serious about changing the irresponsible direction congress has been going for the last few years.
Dave