Posted on 09/05/2002 5:11:24 AM PDT by TroutStalker
WASHINGTON - Republicans hope they will take back the Senate in January. But under one far-fetched scenario involving the U.S. Senate race in Missouri, they could be back in control soon after the November election. Here's how that could happen: The first thing to understand is that the Missouri race is a special election. Sen. Jean Carnahan was appointed to the seat two years ago after the death of her husband and she was to serve only until the next election. The next key point -- one that has political operatives in Missouri and Washington buzzing -- is that under Missouri law, the winner of a special election can be certified to take office almost immediately. He or she does not have to wait until January when the rest of the senators are sworn in. Now it gets a little more complicated. Congress, eager to hit the campaign trail for the November election, is set to adjourn Oct. 4. But unfinished business is clogging the docket, especially in the Senate. It might have to reconvene after the election to take up prescription drugs, the budget, the homeland security bill and Iraq. If the Senate does reconvene in a lame-duck session, and GOP candidate Jim Talent wins Carnahan's seat, the Democrats would lose their one-seat edge to the Republicans. If independent Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont continues to vote with Democrats, the Senate would be split 50-50. The result: Because Vice President Dick Cheney breaks tie votes, the GOP would be in control -- at least until January when the rest of the winners are seated and the balance of power could shift again. The Talent scenario, if it happens, would be a political plus for President Bush. Having his party control the Senate, even if only for a few weeks at the end of the year, gives him more clout to push his agenda. "A bank shot," is how Matthew Dowd, Bush's pollster, described the mountain of political what-ifs. "Phenomenal complications," said Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, chairman of the GOP Policy Committee. But there is still another possible political wrinkle, "kind of a gray area," according to Trent Summers, an election specialist for the Missouri secretary of state. Summers says that the secretary of state and the governor have to certify the victor in a special election. In this case, the secretary of state is Matt Blunt, a Republican, and son of Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a top official in the GOP House leadership. The governor is Bob Holden, a Democrat who -- as it happens -- narrowly defeated Talent for governor two years ago. Blunt most likely would quickly certify Talent's victory, but would Holden? Could he hold up his certification, giving the Democrats more time to control the Senate? "That's the gray area," Summers said. Holden spokesman Mary Still said the governor's office had not done any legal research on the issue and could not comment. Talent spokesman Rich Chrismer said the campaign had not thought about it, but intended to win in any case. Carnahan spokesman Tony Wyche said pretty much the same thing. In Washington, one Republican political operative would not discuss the scenario, but a GOP congressional aide said it was being talked about. Most agreed with Jim Jordan, political director of the Democratic Senatorial Committee, who called the scenario "arcane" and said the Missouri race did not need any more drama. "I don't think the stakes of the election could get much higher," he said. To reach David Goldstein, Washington correspondent, call (202) 383-6105, or send e-mail to dgoldstein@krwashington.com.
Missouri's election frauds are not as well known as the "machine" in Chicago, but are just as effective.
Of course if the scenario plays out, it will just give Lott a leg up on caving into the Rats.
Then why didn't Gore win Missouri?
Chaffee made noises about that last year. But he recently expressed a lot of frustration at the Dems obstructing all the judicial nominees. Guess the grass on the other side of the fence doesn't look quite so green now (kind of ironic, given the amount of manure over there).
WASHINGTON -- President Bush isn't on the ballot this fall, but much of his presidency will be at stake.
The results of Senate, House and gubernatorial races in November will determine what compromises the president will have to strike over the next two years to enact his legislative priorities, whether he'll be able to force confirmation votes on his judicial nominees, how much he can count on big-state governors to boost his re-election campaign in 2004 -- even how many congressional subpoenas his administration is likely to face.
''What it means to the president is how much he gets accomplished during his watch,'' Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot says of the election returns.
''It can slam the brakes on any agenda that you may have as a president, depending on the kind of Congress you're confronting,'' says Leon Panetta, White House chief of staff during the election that came midway through President Clinton's first term in 1994. That year, Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives and Senate.
''The reality is you may control the bully pulpit, but Capitol Hill basically controls the purse and what ultimately gets done in terms of legislation,'' Panetta says. ''It can be very significant in terms of the legacy of any administration.''
Little wonder, then, that White House strategists have watched with concern while an election landscape that lacked much national drama has been shaken through the summer by growing economic unease and reports of corporate misdeeds. The administration's economic forum in Waco, Texas, last month couldn't do anything to affect the economy, organizers knew, but at least it would demonstrate presidential concern about its course.
Likewise, Bush has embarked on a record-breaking round of campaign appearances for GOP candidates even though his strategists acknowledge he'll have a marginal effect on the outcome of their races. A top White House political adviser says that's one thing the economy and the election have in common: They are critical to Bush's fortunes but outside his control.
Republican strategists who were reasonably confident in the spring that the GOP could maintain its slim margin of control in the House this year are no longer so sure as fall campaigning begins in earnest. ''We honestly believe that we can hold on to the majority in the House . . . and we honestly believe that we can regain control of the Senate,'' Racicot says. ''But we certainly wouldn't guarantee that's going to happen.''
The election halfway through Bush's term also will be seen as a sort of referendum on him and his first two years on the job. That may be the case more so than for most presidents because of the way Bush took office last year -- after a disputed election in which he lost the popular vote. The first big Election Day since then will test whether he has coattails and the Republican message has legs.
Of special concern: the Senate contest in Bush's home state of Texas, where an upset victory by Democrat Ron Kirk over Republican John Cornyn would be particularly embarrassing. Karen Hughes, a member of Bush's inner circle who recently moved back to Austin, is keeping an eye on that race. She is his former counselor.
''It is a straw in the wind,'' Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, says of the November election. ''If it's adverse, if the Democrats really score big, it would probably tell a prudent president that he's got to make a midcourse correction.''
Shaping the 2004 field
If the Democrats score big, that's also likely to energize those who are testing the waters for the 2004 presidential campaign. Within weeks after the election, former vice president Al Gore, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and others will be forced by the early Democratic primary schedule to decide whether Bush seems vulnerable enough to make a grueling presidential campaign look worthwhile.
The results will shape the presidential field in other ways. If Democrats lose control of the Senate, Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota may be more likely to run for president. In the House, Democratic leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri has told friends he will run for president if his party stays in the minority. If Democrats regain control, making him speaker, it's not clear what he'll decide.
Even so, history says midterm elections don't signal whether a president will win re-election two years later. If anything, damaging midterms can be a political blessing in disguise, forcing changes at the White House and giving the president an easy foil in an opposition Congress. Since World War II, the presidents whose political parties had the most disastrous midterms -- Harry Truman in 1946, Dwight Eisenhower in 1954 and Bill Clinton in 1994 -- were re-elected two years later.
Consider this: In that time, no opposition party that has gained control of the House or Senate in the election midway through a president's first term has managed to win back the White House two years later.
The two presidents who were defeated for second terms -- Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush -- had better-than-average showings in their midterm elections in 1978 and 1990, respectively.
''In 1982, we lost 26 seats in Congress before Reagan romped to re-election in '84,'' recalls Ron Kaufman, a Republican consultant who was then national political director for the Republican National Committee. In 1990, Kaufman was a senior White House aide for the first President Bush when the GOP lost just eight House seats -- only to see Bush lose re-election two years later.
One election has nothing to do with the next, Kaufman says. The impact of midterms are ''overstated and overreported'' by strategists and journalists, he says.
Getting things done
But he acknowledges that the election does affect the following two years of the president's term. The substantive impact on Bush's legislative agenda could be especially powerful this year, when control of both houses of Congress is up for grabs.
''In terms of personal survival, sometimes a president is better off with an opposition party'' scoring gains, says Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, chairman of the Republicans' congressional campaign committee. ''But if you talk about doing things for the country, you want to control at least one house.''
In the House, a switch of just six seats would swing control to Democrats from the Republicans. That would upend the strategy the White House has used on almost every major legislative priority: Push the president's proposal through the House and use that as a lever to pressure the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Now, GOP leaders in the House often protect the White House's political interests. Democrats complain the Republicans have blocked votes on measures that Bush might find awkward, including the Democratic version of a prescription drug benefit for seniors and a measure to endorse -- or reject -- the recommendations of Bush's Social Security commission. The panel proposed adding private investment accounts to the retirement system, a suggestion that many officeholders see as politically radioactive.
''You'd have a different agenda if Democrats controlled the House,'' says Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas, who would be in line to take over the powerful Rules Committee. He also will run for majority leader if the election elevates Gephardt to speaker. ''They'll be more legitimate contests and philosophical contests in terms of the content of legislation.''
Before a bill could be passed, Frost says, the White House would be forced to negotiate and compromise with Democrats.
Davis sees another important consequence if the GOP loses control of the House: Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., would become chairman of the Government Reform Committee.
Republican Chairman Dan Burton of Indiana used the committee to launch debilitating investigations of the Clinton White House. Waxman has been a fierce critic of the Bush White House on issues such as the secrecy of its energy task force. But without control of the committee, Democrats have been unable to schedule hearings or issue subpoenas.
''You'd have one hearing after another,'' Davis predicts. ''I don't think they realize what's in store for them if that happens.''
As chairman, Waxman would call hearings on issues he felt were important, says Phil Schiliro, his chief of staff -- issues such as what industry leaders met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force. ''The public has a right to know,'' he says. ''There needs to be accountability.''
A single Senate seat
In the Senate, the switch of a single seat would swing control to the Republicans from the Democrats. That presumably would speed consideration of 50 backlogged judicial nominations. If Republicans had control, they probably could have forced the full Senate to vote on the nomination of Mississippi federal Judge Charles Pickering for the Appeals Court. Instead, the Judiciary Committee voted along party lines in March to reject it.
To the frustration of Republicans, Daschle has refused to bring up for quick consideration a series of administration-backed bills that have cleared the House, among them proposals to make the tax cuts in last year's legislation permanent and to change pension laws. The measures probably would have been debated on the Senate floor, though not necessarily enacted, if Republicans were in charge.
''We'd be in a different situation if we still controlled the Senate,'' says a senior White House official who helps formulate strategy. ''Being able to set the calendar and being able to control committee action is critical. And to state the obvious, having House Republicans -- particularly with their discipline and ability to get things done -- is critical.''
In the statehouses, Democrats are favored to gain control of a half-dozen governorships now held by Republicans, including in such key electoral states as Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Governors can provide a ready-made political infrastructure for the party's presidential candidate. ''Clearly the governor's office is crucial in fundraising in a state, message development, political organization -- all the things presidential campaigns like,'' says Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, chairman of the Republican Governors Association. ''It's worth a couple of points.''
Think of the natural advantages for Bush in having a fellow Republican, not to mention a brother, as Florida governor in 2000.
Defying history
Aides say Bush can help Republican candidates most this fall by headlining fundraisers -- he has already broken presidential records by raising about $115 million so far this year -- and maintaining his approval rating. An internal White House analysis notes the relationship between presidential approval and midterm elections. If a president's approval rating is above 60%, an average of five House seats has been lost. If it's below 50%, the average is 41.
What the White House hopes to do this year is defy a historic pattern. Since World War II, the president's party has lost an average of 24 House seats and two to three Senate seats in his first midterm. (Losses midway through a second term tend to be much higher.)
Holding control of the House will mean losing no more than five Republican House seats -- a better showing for the president's party than that in any first-term midterm in four decades. The White House also hopes to gain at least the single Senate seat needed for control.
''When you have a House and Senate that share his vision and his priorities, the president will be able to move swiftly to implement his positive agenda,'' White House spokesman Anne Womack says. She calls the Nov. 5 election ''one of the president's priorities.''
Even so, there can be unexpected consequences from the election returns. The Republican takeover of Congress in 1946 gave Harry Truman a fat target. Railing against ''the do-nothing 80th Congress'' helped lead to his upset victory in 1948. The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 so unnerved Bill Clinton that ''it took a few months to really be able to move beyond the shock of what happened in that election,'' Panetta recalls.
But those losses prompted Clinton to move to more centrist policies, pre-empt some Republican issues and gain credit for welfare reform and balancing the budget. One result: He won another term two years later.
In Missouri, that election was more about Carnahan vs. Ashcroft, than Bush vs. Gore.
The way the rats are treating highly qualified judicial nominees is absolutely shameful.
A tie breaker vote is still a majority, and the spineless 'pubs better stick it to 'em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.