Neither
Blunt nor Boehner is burdened with DeLay's connection to disgraced
lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Like DeLay, each is closely associated
with K Street (the capital's big and brassy lobbyist community).
Unlike DeLay, neither is viewed by ardent ideological conservatives
as one of their own. So, until Shadegg announced his candidacy,
members of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) were
watching a race without a horse to bet on.
While starting
well behind the front-runners, Shadegg is a non-K Street reformer.
He came to Washington as part of the huge Republican class of
'94 that gave the GOP a House majority, and he has not "gone
native" since then (in the language of congressional cloakrooms).
A former RSC chairman, Shadegg a year ago was elected House Republican
Policy Committee chairman (the fifth-ranking party post). In the
leadership, Shadegg has remained a supply-side, free market conservative,
unique in pressing for deep reforms.
Based on
ideological ratings by both left-wing and right-wing organizations,
Blunt and Boehner have nearly identical voting records not much
different from Shadegg's. The difference pondered by rank-and-file
Republican House members is how they will react to the severe
threat posed to the party's majority in the current climate of
scandal.
As acting
majority leader, Blunt has been productive with a much lighter
touch than DeLay. Boehner has worked his way back from his defeat
for re-election as chairman of the House Republican Conference
(the fourth-ranking post) to become an effective chairman of the
Education and Workforce Committee. But each has drawbacks.
Blunt has
been complicit in the epidemic of earmarks, where Republican lawmakers
far exceeded their Democratic predecessors in the amount of special
projects inserted in spending bills without authorization or even
a hearing. Blunt has been vigorous in obtaining earmarks for his
Missouri district and uninterested in restricting the practice.
He was among the party leaders who last year privately spanked
Rep. Mike Pence, the RSC chairman, for trying to cut back earmarks.
Reflecting
the Republican leadership, Blunt has failed to appreciate that
the ill effects of earmarking are not limited to more wasteful
government pork. Earmarks provided a means for resigned Congressman
Duke Cunningham to bypass the regular legislative process in paying
off his bribers.
Earmarks
constitute one major difference between Boehner and Blunt. Boehner
does not use earmarks for his Ohio district and has voted against
pork-laden transportation bills. But reformers scarcely consider
Boehner a brother.
Members
of the lobbying community report that Boehner applies a heavy
hand on lobbyists for contributions. According to lobbyist sources,
Boehner secured six-figure contributions from business groups
for a charity dinner last Sept. 25 that raised $1.1 million for
inner city Catholic schools and Hurricane Katrina relief. Such
contributions are viewed in the political community as deductible
donations to gain favor with a powerful politician. Boehner's
staff declined to disclose to this column the names of contributors.
One reason
why Boehner lost his leadership post to J.C. Watts after the 1996
election was that he had "gone native" after election
as a tough conservative in 1990. He defended weak speakers at
the 1996 Republican National Convention by asserting: "We
don't have the credibility right now to attack Clinton and Gore."
In 1997, he said that "we've got to find some way to compromise"
with the Clinton administration, deploring "the days of wedge
politics."
Discontent
with the Blunt-Boehner choice has reached the point where well-placed
sources are talking about Rep. Tom Reynolds, only in his fourth
term from New York and House Republican campaign chairman for
2006, being "drafted" for the post. Reynolds is a popular,
well-organized politician but does not look like a reformer.
John Shadegg
belittles "reform" that diminishes how expensive a lunch
can be bought for members of Congress. He wants to prevent future
Duke Cunningham scandals by cracking down on earmarks and wants
to abolish government pensions for any future Duke Cunninghams.
But do Republicans in the House want that?
