Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's wrong with Racicot
TownHall.com ^ | Wednesday, January 2, 2002 | by Robert Novak

Posted on 01/02/2002 7:49:19 AM PST by JohnHuang2

TownHall.com: Conservative Columnists: Robert Novak
QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW

townhall.com

Robert Novak (back to story)

January 2, 2002

What's wrong with Racicot

WASHINGTON -- Several weeks ago, President Bush's aides placed discreet telephone calls to members of the Republican political network. Would there be trouble if Marc Racicot, a registered federal lobbyist, becomes the party's new national chairman? No trouble, responded some. But others protested that this was a bad idea and, indeed, bad politics.

Those dissenters probably muffled their objections, because party loyalists hesitate to question their president's judgment. Anyway, the White House had no ready alternative to Racicot to head the Republican National Committee (RNC). The attitude of the president's inner circle seemed that -- amid a war against terrorism -- nobody would notice Racicot's impediments, and if somebody did notice, nobody would care.

Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity, noticed, cared and reported Racicot's lobbying activities in a scathing Washington Post op-ed column Dec. 20. That day Congress adjourned for the year, but Republicans remaining in the capital read Lewis and perceived political problems. During the past week, I have questioned many of the GOP faithful surveyed earlier by presidential aides, and many told me they believe Marc Racicot as RNC chairman is a mistake that should be corrected.

"We have succeeded in turning Terry McAuliffe into a Boy Scout," said one of the Republican operatives. The Democratic Party looked like it was playing with fire a year ago when it followed the urging of Bill and Hillary Clinton and selected McAuliffe, a notorious deal-maker, as national chairman. But McAuliffe does not lobby. Racicot, after a long and distinguished public life in Montana culminating in eight years as governor, does lobby.

When I arrived in Washington 45 years ago, it was unthinkable that a party's national chairman would double as a lobbyist. That was long before the capital's giant law firms, whose partners earn seven-figure incomes while never appearing in a courtroom. For them, "practicing law" means lobbying.

When the lobbying law firm of Hogan & Hartson in 1985 hired Republican National Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, he insisted he was not lobbying even when he connected clients with high government officials. In 1989-93, Democratic Chairman Ron Brown kept his partnership in the Patton Boggs lobbying firm and actually did a little lobbying himself. Haley Barbour's lobbyist occupation was used against him when he ran for RNC chairman in 1993. While he did not divest himself from his own firm, neither did he lobby during his four-year term.

There is no subterfuge or limitation with Racicot. He is plowing new ground as an open partner and registered lobbyist for the Houston-based Bracewell & Patterson firm. Unusually gentle and self-effacing for a politician, Racicot is going farther than the brazen Brown or the flamboyant Barbour dared.

After the 2000 election, Racicot ruled out a Bush Cabinet post. He made clear that 12 years in low-paying elective office in Montana was enough and that for his family's sake, he needed to make some money -- specifically, a seven-figure Washington lobbyist's paycheck. Republican senators hoped he had piled away enough during 2001 to run against Sen. Max Baucus in a 2002 election that could determine party control of the Senate. Despite pleas from the president, Racicot said he still could not afford to live on a senator's salary (more than $150,000 in 2003, a king's ransom for most Americans).

Racicot accepted Bush's offer of the national chairmanship only because he could keep his lobbyist's job. If he had to make do with the chairman's yearly pay of $150,000, the Republican community agrees that Racicot even now would turn down the party post. That is no indictment of a man who long has been dedicated to public service, but a snapshot of political values in today's America.

How is it that giving a registered lobbyist total access to the highest level of government did not seem an apparent conflict of interest for the Bush White House? Arrogance, ignorance, or both? That question could have been finessed if Bracewell & Patterson gave Racicot a handsome bonus to tide him over while he suffered through a year or two at $150,000. Instead, the president's advisers are betting their new ethical boundaries soon will be accepted in Washington.

Contact Robert Novak

©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

townhall.com

QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
Quote of the Day by Gordian Blade
1 posted on 01/02/2002 7:49:19 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Wonder how long this one will last.
2 posted on 01/02/2002 7:52:34 AM PST by Ragin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Ragin1
This is bad thing. Being Chairman of a party and an active lobbyist at the same time is a clear conflict of interest.
4 posted on 01/02/2002 8:02:53 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
There are good Freepers who think Racicot is an excellent man. I simply don't know. But I do know that this job is crucially important. Clinton focused like a laser on getting himself and his people elected and accumulating power. The Dems never forget about winning, and certainly Terry McAuliffe cares about nothing else. We desperately need a head of the RNC who can rally the troops, win elections, hold onto the governorships, and produce a Republican majority in the Senate. We don't need a lot of distractions, bad publicity, and political infighting. We don't need another fight about getting abortion and perversion into the Big Tent. We don't need to nominate a bone-headed RINO for the California governorship. We need a real political expert who knows what he is doing.
5 posted on 01/02/2002 8:04:13 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The Bush administration is continuing the Clinton legacy of, as Rush used to say about the Clintons, "defining deviancy down".

Ever since Bush was elected he is compared to Clinton/Gore as, yes Bush sucks, just not as bad as Clinton/Gore.

In too many cases, the comparisons are becoming closer and closer to no difference. .

6 posted on 01/02/2002 8:11:30 AM PST by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Criticizing our Commander-in-Chief!!! Obviously, Novak wishes the Taliban had won!!!
7 posted on 01/02/2002 8:12:31 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Actually, Novak has consistently been negative towards Dubya for over two years. I don't know if it's resentment due to his family or if it's due to Dubya not giving all exclusives to Novak since he's one of two GOP insiders in the DC press corps (G. Will being the other). Novak's been ragging on Dubya non-stop with only back handed praise in his columns.
8 posted on 01/02/2002 8:21:46 AM PST by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
You sound like digger and you are both full of it.
9 posted on 01/02/2002 8:23:04 AM PST by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"We don't need another fight about getting abortion and perversion into the Big Tent."

Well said, but unfortunately that is the so-called "bad rap" on Racicot.
He is pro-life and pro-traditional family - something a lot of RINOs (like Mary Maitalin) find distasteful.
Too bad for them, true conservatives will leave them in the dust. If the Republican party is too conservative for them now, just wait a couple of years - and watch all of the Jeffords, er, rats jump ship. Let them go and drown in the liberal cesspool of the Demoncratic party.

10 posted on 01/02/2002 8:39:27 AM PST by Psalm 73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
Gawd, I thought my thoughts were going unnoticed. We will see how it all plays out in the next few years. Then you can try to prove to us that we are becoming more conservative under GW. BTW I hope your operation has gone well. Good health & Happy New Year.
11 posted on 01/02/2002 9:03:39 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Careful, you will have the " party over principle" crowd tripping over each other trying to be first to hit the abuse button. Your words could be misconstrued as giving aid and comfort to a free-thinker. Perish the thought.
12 posted on 01/02/2002 9:32:11 AM PST by Patrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Careful, you will have the " party over principle" crowd tripping over each other trying to be first to hit the abuse button. Your words could be misconstrued as giving aid and comfort to a free-thinker. Perish the thought.
13 posted on 01/02/2002 9:32:16 AM PST by Patrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

My two cents worth: I was in Montana, recently, and spoke to a Republican activist. He said that Gov. Roscoe was a personable guy but didn't do enough combat with the enviros for the argriculture and ranching crowd.
14 posted on 01/02/2002 9:37:10 AM PST by bimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bimmer
if the Dems retain control of the Senate by one vote - and Daschle stays as Senate leader - you can thank Racicot for refusing to run a sure-win race against Baucus in MT. What kind of stupid party rewards such lack of loyalty with its chairmanship?
15 posted on 01/02/2002 9:55:59 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
The race to work on is in SD.... It can not only be won, but put a black mark on Daschle if his protege loses....
16 posted on 01/02/2002 9:59:20 PM PST by LurkerNoMore!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
You a westerner?
17 posted on 01/03/2002 5:37:05 AM PST by bimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I wish Novak could have given an example of how this is a bad thing. I'm not sure it's possible.
18 posted on 01/03/2002 5:47:05 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkerNoMore!
I agree that we have to win SD - - - but that won't be enough to give the GOP control, because (Assuming Repubs don't lose any seats) we'd be back to 50-50 -- and in that event, Chafee has said he might follow the JEffords example and go independent. There's also McCain, who can't be trusted. Bottom line: for real control, the GOP needs to pick up at least TWO Senate seats. They could pick up one of those in MT - no sweat - if Racicot ran. But he WON'T. That tells me that he doesn't care as much as you and I about who runs the Senate; he's not as troubled as you and I about Daschle being in charge. OK, fine, Racicot has a right not to care enough to run. But if he doesn't care, WHY SHOULD HE BE CHAIRMAN OF THE GOP? It shows that the party is, indeed, the STOOPID party, whose top brass are careerists and lobbyists, not passionate about the issues you and I care about.
19 posted on 01/03/2002 9:53:30 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
IF Racicot's more interested in being a millionaire than in helping the GOP win back the Senate - if he's more passionate about making big money than he is passionate in wanting Daschle out, --- ie if he refuses to run for Senate because he wants big lobbyist bucks then HE SHOULDN'T BE GOP CHAIRMAN - - - in fact, HE'S A JERK!!!!!!
20 posted on 01/03/2002 9:55:34 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson