After Gephardt

By Richard E. Cohen, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, June 7, 2002

To House Democrats, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., has been a consummate leader, premier legislative strategist, chief spokesman, and tireless campaign fundraiser and candidate booster, for the past 13 years. And during that period, in both good times and bad, he has also been their speaker-in-waiting -- as majority leader, from June 1989 until the Democrats' disastrous 52-seat loss in the November 1994 elections, and as minority leader since then.

Although the Democrats have made gains in the last three elections, they have repeatedly fallen short of recapturing House control, most recently by five seats. But now, just as House Democrats are voicing renewed optimism that they will finally achieve their goal this November, Gephardt and those close to him are signaling that he is prepared to walk away.

Even if Gephardt succeeds in leading Democrats to the House majority in November, he may decline to become speaker so that he can pursue his long-held desire to be president. If Democrats fail again to win House control, Gephardt's voluntary exit as party leader is a virtual certainty.

In a May 21 interview with National Journal, Gephardt repeated his familiar mantra that he is "spending all my waking hours" pursuing the elusive 218 House seats needed for a majority. And he insisted that he hasn't decided about a presidential bid.

But when pressed on whether he could imagine not being the one to lead a House Democratic majority, Gephardt responded, "I'll figure out what to do after the election" about that "hypothetical." And asked whether House Democrats could operate effectively without him, he replied, "It's unimportant who the people are [in charge].... We are all dispensable." In effect, he said that other leaders could grow into the top jobs.

Recent interviews with more than two dozen House Democrats revealed that not only could most of them accept a decision by Gephardt to move on, regardless of the election outcome -- many of them expect him to make such a decision.

"He's more inclined to run for president and give up the leadership," said Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., a former co-chairman of the moderate New Democrat Coalition in the House. "I don't hold it against him at all. He's presidential caliber." Added Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., a leading liberal: "Dick Gephardt has an enormous amount of good will because of all his efforts. That's a decision he will have to make. None of us here is irreplaceable."

Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, took notable exception to this view, however. Rangel said that Democrats need Gephardt's continued leadership, and that it would be "political suicide" for him to walk away from the speakership.

Ever since Gephardt was first elected to the House in 1976, he has always been tightly self-controlled and he has rarely engaged in public introspection. Colleagues say that he actually has few close friends in the House. Veteran House Democrats acknowledge that they don't know what their leader will do after November and that they have not asked him. But that hasn't stopped some from quietly speculating -- or from planning for a succession.

For Gephardt, now 61, the 2004 presidential election may be his last chance to win the job for which he believes he is well suited. When he ran for president in 1988, he won the Iowa caucuses, but then soon fell short of both votes and money. In 1991, Gephardt -- and several other possible Democratic contenders -- declined to challenge President George H.W. Bush, who was enjoying high popularity following his success in the Persian Gulf War. They watched as long-shot Bill Clinton emerged victorious over Bush in 1992.

"In the back of his mind," said Rep. Robert T. Matsui, D-Calif., Gephardt "knows that he should have run [for president] in 1992.... He told me that he thought he could have won the nomination, but that he didn't know how he could win in November" against Bush.

Gephardt has many options but few certainties. He cannot refer to any precedents for guidance. No one has ever given up the job of speaker -- or the opportunity to take the gavel -- to run for president. True, Gephardt could become speaker in January and postpone a decision on whether to run for president until later in 2003. But many Democratic lawmakers and outside political experts contend that it would be impossible for Gephardt to perform well at both full-time tasks, and that the result might be failure at each. Moreover, he might find it difficult to relinquish the speaker's reins midway through a Congress.

Soon after Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., became speaker in 1995, he considered the possibility of running for president. He even faced off with Clinton before New Hampshire voters in June 1995. But Gingrich made no serious move to establish a presidential campaign organization. Instead he sought, with some success, to press his agenda from the Capitol -- until rebellious House Republicans forced him out after GOP losses in the November 1998 election.

Even if Gephardt steps down as leader, he may decide to keep his House seat while running for president. But his departure as leader would have major consequences in the House. Other senior Democrats have already begun tentative campaigns for the leadership, even though they don't know for sure whether Gephardt will step down, or what job will be open: minority leader, majority leader, or even speaker.

Two prime contenders are Reps. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Martin Frost, D-Texas. Pelosi took over in February as House minority whip, Gephardt's No. 2, and she has encouraged talk that she might someday become the first woman to serve as speaker. In an interview, she insisted that she is focused for now only on doing her whip job well. Pelosi emphasized that she hopes Gephardt will remain in the House and that he has "earned the right to do as he wishes." She added that she did not want to engage in "the world of speculation" about his possible departure.

Frost is currently House Democratic Caucus chairman, No. 3 in the hierarchy, but he is required by party rules to relinquish that post at the end of this year after having served two terms. He is seeking support from colleagues for the highest slot that opens up next. "We'll eventually have a contest for majority leader or for minority leader," Frost said in an interview. "I've talked to a large number of members. The results are encouraging."

The early maneuvering over future leadership openings comes as the Democrats are consumed by their struggle to win the House. After playing second fiddle to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and then Al Gore, House Democrats don't have their party's management of the White House to worry about during this election campaign. Indeed, for the first time since 1954, House Democrats are running at a time when their party controls neither the House nor the White House.

Some House Democrats feel liberated from their accountability for Clinton and free to cast themselves as outsiders who are not responsible for what happens in Washington. (That position contrasts with that of Senate Democrats, who, since gaining control of their chamber last June, are more vulnerable to partisan attacks for legislative inaction.) The flip side is that the power of the presidential megaphone has been more pronounced since September 11, when President George W. Bush seized the national stage and Democrats for months were reluctant to challenge his popularity.

In recent weeks, several circumstances have coalesced to increase House Democrats' confidence that they have found their voice and will score big in November. Politically, they have seized on the Social Security issue with cries that Republicans want to partially "privatize" the system and claims that GOP-induced budget deficits have already jeopardized the program. Legislatively, they have challenged the Republicans' management of the House and the GOP's stifling of debate on Democratic bills. And electorally, they contend that they have sufficient candidates to score the six-seat gain needed to win House control, even though relatively few competitive seats are expected to be in play.

"It's going to be tough," acknowledged Rep. Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "But I feel very confident about our prospects to take the majority.... Every poll that we see shows that voters are still very concerned about domestic issues."

For their part, House Republicans dismiss the Democrats' confident claims and contend that little has changed in recent weeks. "I don't see any momentum," said Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., a vice chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "If either side gets any advantage at the margin, that would tip the balance. But if the election were held today, we would pick up a few seats."

As for Gephardt's prospects, Republican operatives say that he damaged himself politically with his recent public questioning of what Bush might have known before September 11 about an imminent terrorist attack. A lobbyist closely connected to House GOP leaders contended that Gephardt already has "checked out" of his House duties. Gephardt allies firmly dismiss both charges.

Gephardt's suggestion that he might step aside, even if Democrats win the House, seems to acknowledge that he would find it difficult to serve as speaker and run for president at the same time. Other Democrats also believe that he would have to choose before the presidential primaries begin in early 2004. "Being speaker and planning to run for president are not inconsistent," said a senior House Democrat. "But members could lose patience if he's distracted."

In theory, Gephardt could perform both tasks. In 1996, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., kept his leadership post through the early stages of his presidential campaign. He didn't resign from the Senate until May, when he had won enough delegates to secure the GOP presidential nomination. Dole, however, had begun his campaign as the clear front-runner in the Republican field.

So far, House Democrats have mostly backed Gephardt whenever he has challenged Bush rhetorically. But several House sources voiced concern that the demands on a presidential contender differ significantly from those on a legislative leader, and that Gephardt sometimes has blurred the two roles.

Gephardt has made four trips to New Hampshire, for example, and two to Iowa since January 2001, according to an aide. Gephardt justifies the visits as routine because both states -- with their total of seven House districts -- have active congressional campaigns this year. Yet many Democrats dismiss that rationale. Some point out that the minority leader has not shown the flag in places such as Connecticut and New Mexico, which also are House battlegrounds -- but are not presidential proving grounds.

Gephardt has also sought to better establish himself as a national figure with a series of speeches outlining "policies for America's future," most recently in a high-profile June 4 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. Stepping out on foreign-policy issues differs from the normal fare for most congressional leaders, who usually focus on day-to-day developments and the relative merits of legislative minutiae.

"All that Gephardt is doing is running for president," grumbled a House Democrat who demanded anonymity. "There is no intensity there, or any thematic efforts. Members talk about this, but can't do much."

Other House Democratic leaders maintain that Gephardt is more focused on the midterm election than is anyone else on their side. "No one comes close to his efforts and the leadership that he provides," Pelosi said. Frost said that Gephardt has worked hard for eight years to keep the minority party united. And Lowey noted that Gephardt regularly travels around the country for fundraising events sponsored by the DCCC. Aides say that his typical Washington workday extends more than 12 hours and that he runs young staffers into the ground.

Still, second-guessing is prevalent among House Democrats. Veteran Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., told National Journal's CongressDaily in April that Democrats must do more to motivate voters by aggressively pointing out the differences between the two parties. In what was widely viewed as a swipe at Gephardt, Miller declared, "You can't manage your way into the majority."

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the former chairman of the House Progressive Caucus, complained that "a lot of members are getting comfortable in the minority..... They get a paycheck and they don't have to work as hard. You don't see the hunger, as there was among Republicans under Newt Gingrich" in 1994. Although he did not criticize Gephardt directly, DeFazio said that Democrats regularly miss opportunities to pursue a populist message that attacks the "corruption" of Republicans and business leaders.

From the political center, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., a co-chairman of the New Democrat Coalition in the House, voiced frustration that Democrats continue to lose elections because many of them campaign for "more government." Smith noted that Gephardt is "very sympathetic" to his views, but added that the party leader must respond to the "whining of the 120 to 130 [House] Democrats on the other side" of the issues.

Moreover, a veteran House Democratic aide said that some senior members are "tuning out" Gephardt. "The pre-1994 members hate being in the minority, and they see him as the minority leader," this aide said.

Other House Democrats said that in the months immediately after September 11, Gephardt was essential in handling emergency legislation and the bipartisan leadership meetings with Bush. But a Democratic member said that now, as a semblance of political normalcy has returned, lawmakers view Gephardt's role as less crucial.

The tensions among House Democrats probably would worsen if they won the majority and Gephardt became speaker. In contrast to the difficulties that Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., has faced in steering his freewheeling chamber, the House speaker can invoke rules that give even a one-vote majority virtually unfettered authority to ram through legislation. So, as speaker, Gephardt would be in a strong position to rally the Democratic Party's faithful and move their agenda. But that could also impose additional burdens on Gephardt.

On controversial issues, he would confront the multiple and sometimes conflicting demands of his party's many factions -- including progressives, New Democrats, Blue Dogs, Hispanics, and Blacks. "The Democratic Caucus is a more diverse group than are Republicans," said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., a former chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "As a result, we have to work harder at creating coalitions.... No group can be ignored."

And a Speaker Gephardt would instantly become a prime target of GOP attacks, especially if he also keeps the door open to a presidential bid. "He would have to deliver on an agenda, in the face of a determined opposition," acknowledged a source close to Gephardt. All in all, the strains could prove quite heavy. Keep in mind that in the narrowly divided Congresses of the past decade, both majority- and minority-party leaders have been worn down by the incessant pressures of their jobs.

Meanwhile, even if Gephardt is inclined to relinquish his leadership cloak in the House, he has a lot at stake in the November elections. "He understands that the best way [for him to run for president] is to elect a Democratic majority in the House," said Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Put another way, Gephardt's national credentials could be tarnished if he failed, for a fourth time, to win House control.

A Gephardt adviser was more circumspect in defining this year's challenge. "Win or lose in 2002," said this adviser, "as long as he has done everything he can to win the House, he keeps his options for 2004."

Historically, the party that doesn't hold the White House usually picks up congressional seats in midterm elections. But this year, the conventional wisdom in Washington has generally been that it will be difficult for Democrats to regain House control in November, both because of the relatively small number of competitive seats, and because of Bush's high popularity. Yet, by many accounts, House Democrats have grown more and more upbeat during the past month or two, believing that they do, in fact, have a realistic shot at winning back their chamber.

"It's probably 50-50 now, with the momentum to us," Pelosi said. "We are sending a clear message to Republicans that we are unified. Our success breeds success." And Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., declared: "The prospects are pretty good that we'll take the majority.... For the first time, we are fighting, and the Republicans are going to have to take us on."

Measuring a political party's enthusiasm and confidence is an imprecise art -- if only because politicians rarely admit that things are going badly. Sometimes, however, they will concede past problems, if only to show how much their situation has improved. That is the case now for many House Democrats, as they recall the dispiriting time they endured shortly after the 2000 election.

Not only had Gore -- controversially -- lost his presidential bid, but House Democrats themselves had performed relatively poorly, compared with the electoral showings by Gore and Senate Democrats. A few weeks before the 2000 election, Democratic insiders had viewed the House as their best prospect for big gains. "Not taking the House was pretty tough for many of us," said a veteran House Democrat. Added a senior Democratic leadership aide: "After the 2000 election, we were crushed."

But by the time Congress returned from its summer recess early last September, the mood among House Democrats had improved significantly. They felt that they were on the offensive: Their party controlled the Senate, and Bush's approval ratings were dropping.

Democrats "were dictating the message and public opinion," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the assistant to the House minority leader. "We were successful in focusing on the issues that people cared about," including Social Security, health care, the environment, and campaign finance reform.

Of course, September 11 dramatically changed the focus in Washington. Yet, although the nation remains united in the war against terrorism, "the public is now willing to listen to a debate on the other issues," in DeLauro's view. Contributing to that change, Frost said, has been the public's realization that the nation's economy remains "soft." And he said that the White House's sending of "confusing and contradictory" signals on its Middle East policies has left voters concluding, "The White House may be fallible after all." Democrats may also stand to benefit from the controversy over what administration officials knew before September 11 about possible terrorist threats.

Several other significant factors have changed the House Democrats' world in recent months. The first was Pelosi's February takeover as minority whip from Rep. David E. Bonior, D-Mich., who is running for governor. Many members contend that Pelosi has "energized" the party's ranks. "There is a new attitude that we can win votes and be an effective opposition," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., one of Pelosi's chief deputy whips. "There is also a joyfulness about Nancy.... When we returned from the spring recess, she told [members] that they need to think about themselves as Mr. Chairman or Madame Chairman."

Meanwhile, under the direction of Gephardt and Matsui, D-Calif., who is the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, Democrats stepped up their attack on Republican proposals for partial "privatization" of Social Security. Democrats have repeatedly blasted such proposals as risky, especially in light of the collapse of Enron and its employee pension plans, and they have contended that Republican tax and spending policies already were jeopardizing Social Security.

Separately, House Democratic campaign experts say that their hopes have been bolstered by the party's better-than-expected results in redistricting nationwide, and by upbeat assessments of their prospects in key House contests. Democrats are also happy about Lowey's changes at the DCCC, including the millions of additional dollars that House leaders are raising and party officials' stronger "mentoring" of candidates in pivotal races.

And yet, even with all of these positive developments, not all Democrats agree with the leadership's political strategy. Some moderates, for instance, object to their party's handling of the Social Security issue. Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla., a co-chairman of the House's New Democrat Coalition, said, "There hasn't been enough discussion" among House Democrats about "our own solutions." Likewise, Smith cautioned: "Demagoguing of Social Security only gets you so far."

Shortly before Congress's Memorial Day recess, critics again raised doubts about the political mileage that House Democrats are getting from their confrontational approach. For two days, Democrats used delaying tactics to stall House debate on the fiscal 2002 supplemental appropriations bill for defense and homeland security. Democrats objected to the Republicans' decision to include provisions in the bill allowing an increase in the federal debt ceiling.

Dozens of Democrats staged a walkout and a press conference outside the Capitol. But neither the walkout, nor the House's subsequent passage of the bill well after midnight, attracted much media coverage.

Regardless of both Gephardt's plans and the election results, House Democrats already face numerous leadership contests that will determine their party's future direction. Additional clashes -- even an overhaul of their entire leadership team -- are distinctly possible when they organize for the 108th Congress shortly after the November election.

Looming over all of these contests is the potential matchup between Pelosi, the whip, and Frost, the Caucus chairman, which could determine who runs the House.

Pelosi, first elected in 1987 from San Francisco, has one of the most liberal voting records in the House. She has been an active member of the House Appropriations Committee, chiefly on foreign aid and labor and health issues, and she is the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee. Pelosi also has long been an active party fundraiser, especially in California.

Frost, who has represented the Dallas-Fort Worth area since 1979, has more-moderate views. He has held several party posts, including the chairmanship of the DCCC and its redistricting efforts, and he is currently the ranking member on the House Rules Committee. Frost has also been active for his party in Texas politics.

Since winning the whip's job, Pelosi has gained some national media exposure and has received plaudits from many women's groups. The more-cautious and less-quotable Frost emphasizes his knowledge of the House and its members, including the need for Democrats to appeal to centrist voters to regain the majority. Pelosi supporters contend that she would have no trouble defeating Frost. But Frost supporters and some supposedly neutral observers respond that he should not be discounted. Moreover, it's not out of the question that other veteran House Democrats might enter into the race, particularly if the speaker's job is at stake.

Meanwhile, Hoyer, after losing to Pelosi in the contest for whip last October, announced in April that he plans to again seek the position if it opens up in the next Congress -- either because Pelosi seeks to move up the leadership ladder, or because the Democrats take the majority and gain additional leadership slots. Hoyer has released a list of 160 members who have endorsed him. He notes that 57 of them previously had backed Pelosi, which he said shows "they weren't against me in the [earlier] race, they were for Nancy." At this point, Hoyer has no opponents for the hypothetical opening.

In another race, DeLauro and Menendez are both actively campaigning to succeed Frost as Caucus chairman. DeLauro lost the position to Frost 108-97 in 1998. As Gephardt's assistant chiefly charged with communicating the party's message, DeLauro is emphasizing her achievements in finding additional ways for House Democrats to convey their views, both nationally and in their districts. She voiced hope that members will support her based on "my success in creating an infrastructure that didn't exist and a new leadership position."

Menendez, who defeated two other candidates when he became Caucus vice chairman in 1998, said he has a vision for broader change in Caucus operations, "so that it is the vehicle that drives organizing principles for Democrats in the House."

Ain't a gonna happen. If he thinks he's even got a shot, then he's as politically tone deaf as the junior senator from NY (which is possible but quite unlikely).

I'm sure he's run some polls and has probably determined 2 things:

A) There's a void at the top of the democratic party and it really is 'ripe' for someone to come in.

B) Unfortunately for him, he's got NO name recognition outside of MO and the Beltway.
[Why anyone would vote for him and his same old tired ideas is absolutely beyond me.... seeing a couple of his campaigns makes me think that in St. Louis folks must like having a 'power broker' back there simply because he's from Missouri. Also the district he represents isn't very conservative either... oh well.]

I think the author wasted alot of effort.

Here's the skinny....

Take a look at the last 4 presidents (covering almost 20 years now)... what is something that stands out among those men that is somewhat unique (compared to the previous 190 or so years)????????

Answer: The next president has to be 'handsome' and 'slick' and has to come across VERY VERY WELL on television. That's how folks make up their minds (whether we like it or not). It's not how well thought out their ideas are or 'what they believe in'.

Oh no... it's simply... 'Do I want to see this guys mug in my living room over the next 4-8 years?' Would I want this guy to come over to my house for dinner (as I plan on eating alot of chips and drinking alot of beer with him just 10 feet away)???

I wish it weren't so, but it's a sad fact. Remember Paul Tsongas? He never had a chance... he looked like Elmer Fudd. Granted, I didn't agree with his ideas.. but he was probably one of the best candidates back in 91 for the dems.

No... instead they went with the best used-car saleman in history from Arkansas (if he had only followed his 'true calling'). People want something that is super polished and is a slick talker who's gonna make em feel good.

I can't believe that Gephardt is gonna get any feedback to confirm that he's got the 'charisma' needed to run for Pres.

If he does, then it'll be a shoe in for GWB (unless GWB continues his capitulation to the left and becomes so centrist that the conversative base walks... er stays home).

If Gephardt plans to roll the dice and do what Dole did (i.e. give up what he has waited for more than a decade for) just for his own blind ambition.... then it can only help the pubbies. Although I'd bet that he'd pull a Lieberman and enable himself to remain on the ballot (just in case ;^).

IMO, look for Evan Bayh (or some dashing youngblood) to step in. It's not about ideas.... it's about packaging. We all know their ideas are socialistic in nature... so for them to get to the presidency it's simply a battle of putting a nice gel coating on a pill that America doesn't want (but they feel America 'needs').

And the way the NEA and the public education system has been run in this country, they have been extremely successful and dumbing folks down (so they can't think logically and objectively) so that even the average Joe feels that we 'need' socialism.

If they had their way, they'd simply state: 'It's not about freedom... it's about SECURITY.'

Or more accurately, "IT'S THE CONTROL STUPID!"

Your right. People have an image of Gephardt as a political insider, somone who seems overly partisian and who looks burned out. He is not popular with other democrats. They feel as though they owe him, but many of them wanted to retire and now resent him for him having kept them in for so long. Dashle and him can't stand the sight of each other. He's played alot of games to unite the dems, a group with alot of infighting. He also does not get along with Maclduff. He wants the presidency, its going to be a very very bloody primary with who ever walks out, being easy pickins for Bush, and a boost for the Greens. Its easy for the greens when they have no real primary, and they can use the dems own primary to tar and feather who ever gets nominated. They would love to rip Gephardt as the ultimate insider politican, he is everything they hate about the dem party now.(well him and lieberman).

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.