WASHINGTON, 3 February 2006 — In the race to replace scandal-scarred Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri has emerged as the favorite in yesterday’s Republican vote for a new House majority leader, a contest that has been dominated by debate over the party’s direction in the wake of ethics scandals.
Blunt victory in yesterday’s vote also would emphasize how the outcome of Capitol Hill’s leadership races often are determined less by weighty issues of policy and vision and more by matters such as personal bonds, geographic loyalties and committee assignments.
Veteran observers say leadership elections often take on the characteristics of a political bazaar as ambitious junior lawmakers try to exert leverage over those who seek power. A committee assignment or subcommittee chairmanship might be sought; a promise extracted to allow a vote on a piece of legislation.Blunt, criticized by his challengers for his close ties to some of corporate America’s most influential lobbyists, appeared to have overcome fears with many of his Republican colleagues that those relationships could embarrass the party in this election year.
Blunt and the two other candidates for majority leader — John A. Boehner of Ohio and John Shadegg of Arizona — have pledged to support efforts designed to put more distance between lawmakers and lobbyists.The push for such efforts followed the guilty pleas entered in early January by lobbyist Jack Abramoff to charges of fraud and conspiracy to bribe lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides. Abramoff was closely linked to several top Republicans, including DeLay.
Blunt, the whip and acting majority leader, claims enough votes to triumph on a first ballot. Boehner and Shadegg say otherwise, and each hopes to outdistance the other, then prevail over Blunt in a second-round run-off.
Strategists for Blunt, Boehner and Shadegg admitted that the secret-ballot vote for majority leader could yet produce an upset.
Both of Blunt’s rivals seek to position themselves as the candidates of reform. Both argue they, more than Blunt, can curtail the process known as earmarking, in which lawmakers take custody of federal funds for a pet project.
Shadegg went a step further this week, appearing at a news conference to accept the endorsement of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. “Both of us understand that real reform means more than tightening bureaucratic rules; it means fundamental changes to the way Congress does business,” Shadegg said.
On Wednesday, the House took its first step toward ethics reform sparked by the Abramoff scandal when it voted, 379 to 50, to ban from the chamber’s floor and its gym former members who are lobbyists.The new rule, sponsored by Republicans, also applies to spouses of current lawmakers — meaning it also applies to Blunt’s wife, who is a lobbyist.Democrats have pledged to make what they call Washington’s “culture of corruption” under Republican leadership a key campaign issue. They say choosing Blunt as majority leader — the House’s No. 2 post — would signal that most of the chamber’s Republicans were more interested in stability than establishing real charges.“We’re going to have the first significant leadership election since 1998,” New York Rep. Tom Reynolds told journalists.
Reynolds, who is running the party’s 2006 House campaign, says all Republicans share a common view regardless of how the leadership race turns out: “I think they know we have the wind to our face” in the run-up to the November elections.
President Bush’s poor poll showing accounts for part of that, but the GOP-controlled Congress has more trouble.
Increasing scandals — California Rep. Randy Cunningham’s resignation after pleading guilty to bribe-taking, DeLay’s indictment on campaign charges in Texas — climaxed when lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate in a congressional corruption probe.
DeLay, with close ties to Abramoff, then abandoned his efforts to hold onto power.
