Copyright 2000 The National Journal, Inc.
The National Journal
View Related Topics
May 6, 2000
SECTION: CONGRESS; Pg. 1410; Vol. 32, No. 19
LENGTH: 3213 words
HEADLINE:
Gephardt's Long March
BYLINE: Richard E. Cohen
HIGHLIGHT:
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt is
forcefully guiding the
Democrats' campaign for control of the House.
BODY:
House Minority Leader Richard A.
Gephardt, D-Mo., is behaving an
awful lot these days like another well-known
political figure.
Gephardt probably wouldn't welcome comparisons to this
much-
lampooned and now somewhat discredited character. But as he leads
the Democratic campaign to retake control of the House in
November's
elections, the similarities between him and Newt
Gingrich are unavoidable.
Gephardt has seized control of all parts of the
House
Democrats' legislative and political operations. In fact,
Gephardt
is dominating his forces as completely as Gingrich did
in 1994, when he
guided once-dispirited House Republicans to
electoral victory and then took
over as their all-powerful
Speaker in the chamber's first switch of party
control in 40
years.
As Gingrich did six years
ago with his Contract With
America, Gephardt and his cadre of loyalists have
built a clear-
cut agenda of popular issues that they promise to move
through
the House next year. In addition, Gephardt is tirelessly
crisscrossing the nation, a la Newt, to generate publicity and
fund-raising dollars for Demo-cratic candidates. And Gephardt is
triggering the same antipathy and deep cynicism across the
partisan
aisle that Gingrich did.
Perhaps most important, a
Gingrich-like zeal and power of
positive thinking prevail among House
Democrats-a mood swing that
Gephardt is very proud of. "I was saying this
has to be a team" a
few years ago, Gephardt said during a recent interview
in his
Capitol office. "That has happened."
House Minority Whip David E. Bonior, D-Mich., called
Gephardt's
efforts to set the Democrats' campaign strategy
"phenomenal," and said his
role has evolved since he first became
party leader in 1995. "He's sewn us
together as a Caucus," said
Bonior, "so that we talk to each other and are
more deferential,"
in contrast to the "chaotic" Democratic battles of 1994.
To be sure, the parallels between Gingrich and
Gephardt
have their limitations. Compared with the bombastic and
loquacious Gingrich, Gephardt is temperamentally cool and
charismatically challenged. On Capitol Hill, Gephardt remains
more the
dogged workhorse than the rhetorical activist. Moreover,
the fact that this
is a presidential election year restricts
Gephardt's ability to dominate the
national stage, Gingrich-
style. And if Democrats win control of the House
in November,
they will not score anything like the Republicans' stunning 52-
seat gain that obliterated the Democrats' 40-seat majority in
1994.
Still, Gephardt's orchestration of the House
Democrats'
campaign and his commitment to success invoke the fervor that
Gingrich conveyed when he was riding high. Gephardt has
singularly
focused the Democrats on regaining control of the
House. Everything else
pales for them-including the China trade
legislation, which is the chief
legislative priority of their
party's lame-duck President but which is
opposed by Democratic
allies in organized labor. Whether or not they succeed
in
November, House Democrats will have little reason afterward to
second-guess whether they could have done more.
Freshman Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., who is a top target of
the GOP this
year, said that Gephardt's determination is apparent
in the attention he is
devoting to Democratic first-termers.
Gephardt already has made two visits
to Holt's district and has
provided staff assistance. He also appointed Holt
to the House-
Senate conference committee that resolved differences on the
fiscal 2001 budget resolution, and thus gave Holt leverage to
increase
science funding, which is important to his Princeton-
area district.
"Over the years, Democrats have not always been
unified,"
said Holt. "Now we are on the same page, and Gephardt helps to
keep us there."
But even with their much-touted
claims of success in
candidate recruitment, fund raising, and political
message-
building, Democrats confess-when pressed-that the November
contest remains a nail-biter. "Will we win?" Gephardt asked
rhetorically
in the interview. "I think we can. But I don't
know."
Yet when asked a few minutes later whether he would serve
another two
years as Minority Leader if the House Democrats fail,
Gephardt responded, "I
don't think about it.... I'm convinced we
are going to be in the majority."
Added Gephardt's Chief of Staff
Steve Elmendorf, "I've never been confident.
I'm always
optimistic."
The biggest uncertainty,
said Bonior, is "how we close"
the year's legislative and campaign endgames.
A Top-Down Campaign
Of course, House Democrats also professed optimism
during the
1996 and 1998 campaigns, but their paltry nine-seat and five-seat
gains left the Republicans with their current 222-211 majority
(plus two
independents). So what is the basis for the Democrats'
claims that this year
somehow will be different?
Part of the difference
involves Gephardt himself. Since
his decision in early 1999 not to run for
President, he has
turned his attention exclusively to his quest to become
Speaker.
His decision not to run also reduced the jockeying and friction
between himself and Vice President Al Gore. "Now he's solely
focused on
taking back the House," House Democratic Caucus
Chairman Martin Frost of
Texas said of Gephardt. "That makes a
big difference."
Gephardt has become the deciding force on all sorts of
matters,
including which candidates get support and how campaign
rhetoric is
fine-tuned. Although Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode
Island has been an
active chairman of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign
Committee-especially in supervising fund
raising-even he concedes the
obvious. "There is no question that
Dick Gephardt is the leader of our
team," said Kennedy. "It's a
very symbiotic relationship."
Gephardt devotes much of his time in Washington to
campaign
demands. When the House is in session, he typically
spends two hours a day
dialing for dollars on the telephones at
the DCCC offices a few blocks from
the Capitol, according to
aides. All told, he has raised more than $ 18
million for the DCCC
and $ 3 million directly for Democratic candidates
during this
election cycle.
Moreover, when
Gephardt visits the DCCC, familiar faces
greet him: Executive Director David
Plouffe and Communications
Director Eric Smith previously held senior
positions in
Gephardt's leadership office, although both say that Kennedy
hired them on his own.
In contrast to previous
years, when various party leaders
were criticized for pursuing their
personal political interests,
Democrats contend that all members of their
team are focused on
the common goal. "Dick is in charge of our entire effort
to get
the majority. He is very hands-on," said Elmendorf. "Patrick runs
the day-to-day operation at the DCCC and has a complete focus on
winning
the majority."
But Gephardt's unusually high profile
has spawned some
second-guessing among Republicans about his decision to
bypass
more-senior Democrats and select the 32-year-old youngest child
of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., to run the DCCC, largely
because of
Patrick's fund-raising ability.
"It was hubris and
naivete to put Patrick Kennedy in as
the titular head and have Gephardt run
it. It's a problem of day-
to-day management and who is calling the shots,"
said former Rep.
Bill Paxon of New York, who chaired the National Republican
Congressional Committee from 1993-96. "With Newt, it was
synergistic. I
ran the operation day-to-day, and Newt set the big
picture."
Gephardt, Kennedy, and their aides dismiss such
criticisms. To
prove the wisdom of Kennedy's selection, they
point to the DCCC's record
fund raising and Kennedy's local
appearances on behalf of two dozen
Democratic candidates. They
also note that current NRCC Chairman Tom Davis
of Virginia-who,
like Kennedy, was first elected in 1994-has made some
questionable spending decisions at the behest of senior House
Republicans.
"I know that my usefulness to the
(Democratic) Caucus is
to get out on the road and utilize my ability to
attract dollars
for the DCCC," Kennedy said. "My last name cuts through more
than
for someone without my name. That is a useful commodity."
Kennedy said he has also been actively engaged in
the
committee's political operations. In a clear swipe at Davis'
well-known encyclopedic recall of congressional campaign arcana,
Kennedy
added: "The comparison is made that I don't have the
political almanac. I
don't need that, because I have the staff."
Regardless of who is in charge, the DCCC clearly has done
some things
well during this election cycle. The party's
extraordinary fund
raising-which is a general trend in the 2000
campaign-has left it with $ 30
million cash-on-hand, and "our two
biggest (fund-raising) quarters are
coming up," Kennedy said. The
result, according to Plouffe, is that
Democrats will be at
financial parity, at least, with the Republicans.
With their seven retirements compared with the House
Republicans' 23, Democrats are in a better position to play
offense in
the district-by-district matchups. In the Democrats'
view, however, neither
party in the House will benefit from
presidential coattails. So far,
coordination between the Gore
campaign and House Democrats has been limited,
although relations
at the senior level have been cordial.
If Democrats have one nagging concern about the election,
it is
that the relatively few competitive House contests
nationwide (an expected
40 to 50) will leave them little margin
for error. Traditionally, political
wisdom dictates that the
minority party should expand the playing field as
much as
possible. But Democrats missed some opportunities to recruit good
candidates.
Take the district of freshman Rep.
Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who
in 1998 won a hard-fought contest for a seat that
Democrats had
held for most of the past 30 years. As the July filing
deadline
approaches, local Democratic officials have been turned down by
no fewer than nine potential "top-tier opponents," Ryan said.
Kennedy responded: "Have I lost sleep that (our
recruiting) is
not perfect? You bet. But the fact is, overall we
have a better lineup of
candidates than ever, and more than
enough candidates running."
The
Democratic Agenda
Meanwhile, with Gingrich no longer on the scene and with
his
successor, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., something less than
a
household name, Gephardt and the Democrats contend that they
are dominating
the legislative debate on Capitol Hill.
The chief
issues that most, but not all, of the House
Democrats have pushed include a
minimum-wage increase, education
funding, patients' rights, prescription
drug coverage for
Medicare recipients, campaign finance reform, and gun
control.
House Republicans have belatedly supported
many of these
proposals, to one degree or another. The Republicans' strategy
is
to inoculate themselves this election year by passing legislation
in
some of these popular areas, even if the bills do not go as
far as President
Clinton or Democratic lawmakers would like.
Democrats, however, don't seem too worried that their
agenda may be
hijacked. Gephardt contends that the Republicans
are running the "David
Copperfield Congress, where they create an
illusion of progress without
doing anything."
For many Democrats, what happens
legislatively during the
next six months is less important than that their
party has
placed itself firmly on the side of issues that matter most to
middle-class voters. "Moderate, suburban America is where this
election
will be determined," said freshman Holt. "Our Democratic
agenda is perfect
for me."
Another New Jersey Democrat, Cherry Hill
Mayor Susan Bass
Levin, who is challenging veteran Republican Rep. Jim
Saxton,
said that Democrats would retain their advantage even if
Republicans try to take some of these issues off the table by
passing
legislation later this year. "(Voters) are not stupid,"
said Levin. "They
see what happens when legislation is delayed or
loopholes are added."
Said Kennedy, "The American public has seen the
Republican leaders, and they have had enough chance.... That's
why even
George W. Bush pulls a triangulation" in separating his
presidential
candidacy from the Capitol Hill GOP.
Still, other
Democrats are cautious about how closely
they link themselves to their
national party's agenda. Susan
Davis, a California assemblywoman who hopes
to oust Republican
Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, said that politics in Washington
are
"distant" from her own efforts to reach out to independent voters
in
her suburban San Diego district. "The national message is what
I've been
talking about" all along in the California Statehouse,
said Davis. "I
haven't changed."
Although House Democrats have
rallied around the party
agenda, they face potential problems in the run up
to the
election, particularly over Clinton's proposal to grant permanent
normal trade relations status to China. Republicans are intent on
exploiting Democratic divisions during the China PNTR
debate, and
Gephardt faces challenges in managing his ranks. But that's
nothing new for him.
Gephardt's career as a
Democratic leader has taken him
along a bumpy road with several curves.
After he was first
elected in 1976, Gephardt quickly emerged as a party
rebel when
he led the Democrats against President Jimmy Carter's legislation
to control health care costs. In the 1980s, Gephardt tried to
modernize
old-style Democratic views on some economic issues,
while taking a more
protectionist approach on international
trade. That frequently left him
struggling with his party's
congressional barons.
Then, after his 1988 bid for President as a populist fell
short of
money and organization, Gephardt returned to the House
as Majority Leader
and became a loyal proponent of Clinton's 1993
health care initiative. But
despite Gephardt's efforts, that
measure died without a House vote. After
several senior Democrats
were routed in the 1994 elections, Gephardt was
left unchallenged
as the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill.
Since then, Gephardt has worked tirelessly to build
esprit de corps among his troops on policy matters. "There has
been a
progressive increase of involvement of the whole Caucus in
what we do," he
said. With a vote on the China trade proposal
scheduled for later this
month, Gephardt will face another test
of his ability to prevent fratricide
among disagreeing House
Democrats.
Senior
Democratic lawmakers have made clear their dismay
that Clinton has forced
them into a corner over the China issue
so close to the election. "The
Clinton and Gore positions cloud
our message," said Bonior, a leader of the
opposition to China
PNTR.
Kennedy added that he is "upset that House Democrats are
on the firing
line," while "there is a pass at the presidential
level (for Gore) from
labor." He complained that the China
legislation "tears at" Democratic
members who are considered
vulnerable in the election.
But some of those vulnerable members directed their
unhappiness inward
after Gephardt announced on April 19 that he
would oppose
PNTR for China. Freshman Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind.,
who
voiced early support for PNTR, said that "it complicates
things a bit for my leadership to be against it" so visibly. He
added
that Democrats run the risk of being "sidetracked" by the
trade debate from
their main concerns, on which they need to be
"focused and consistent."
Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas, another vulnerable
first-
term Democrat, has felt the heat from local labor unions since he
announced support for the China legislation. "I honestly believe
that
this is the right thing to do for our country," said Moore,
who represents a
Republican-leaning district. "I'll be OK back
home if people look at what
I've done."
Gephardt's announcement on China
PNTR attracted
significant criticism from House
Republicans, who complained that
he had sowed doubts about his position for
months while also
raising hefty campaign funds from business groups that
support
the legislation. Republicans say that three weeks earlier,
Gephardt had appeared before a high-tech trade group and said,
"I'm so
passionate about what you are doing."
Plans for a Transition
Politicians
are usually reluctant to talk publicly about the
steps they would take after
an Election Day victory, lest they
appear unduly arrogant or presumptuous.
But House Democrats have
begun private discussions on this topic, and they
have sent
various signals about their plans.
When the Republicans took over in 1995, they approved a
series of
internal House reforms-including term limits for
committee chairmen and
cutbacks in staff-that were intended to
sweep aside what they saw as the
excesses of Democratic control.
Recently, however, Democratic members and
Gephardt's aides have
sent conflicting messages about whether Democrats
would change
the current House rules if they regain the majority.
After Roll Call reported last month that Gephardt's
aides
said he was prepared to retain the current House rules, U.S. Term
Limits-the leading national advocacy group for that cause-ran a
television ad that thanked Gephardt for "rejecting the old
politics."
In his interview with National Journal, however,
Gephardt
was not so specific. "We need a democratic process, after the
election, to see what has worked," he said. "I don't want to
decide any
of this now. I want an open mind on keeping (the
Republican) rules changes
that have worked."
Some senior Democrats strongly
oppose a continuation of
term limits for Democratic committee chairmen and
want to force
action on the issue. But Gephardt obviously is mindful that
junior Democrats and others might complain if a restored
Democratic
majority takes an early step that evokes their party's
discredited past.
Another reason that politicians are wary of publicly
addressing such procedural topics as term limits is that most
voters
typically don't care which party holds the congressional
majority. "It's an
issue that helps our fund raising and
candidate recruitment," Plouffe said,
"but who controls the House
is not a dominant issue in any campaign. Only 3
to 5 percent of
voters care about that."
Whether
Gephardt and his team can make the case that it's
time for a big shift,
similar to the one in 1994, will help
determine the outcome in November. As
most impartial experts-and
even some partisans-now agree, it's too close to
call.
LOAD-DATE: May 9, 2000 
