Bush’s five-day, 15-state campaign swing worked, pushing enough close races toward the GOP for the Republicans to regain control of the Senate and expand their margin in the House. Bush deserves credit for bucking the midterm tide–especially in the midst of a weakened economy and when polls show a majority of people think the country is on the wrong track. But then winning is easy when the opposition doesn’t fight back and plays according to your rules. It’s like the old Bill Cosby routine on how kids in the playground would have set the rules for the Revolutionary War. “OK, we can wear dark clothes and hide in the woods and behind rocks. You guys have to wear red coats and march in a straight line.”
Democrats cowered in Bush’s shadow on the defining issues of war and taxes, leaving voters vulnerable to Bush’s rhetoric and wondering what, if anything, the other party stood for beyond protecting Social Security, a shopworn issue especially for younger voters. Democrats resigned themselves to the superheated patriotic environment and never really confronted Bush on the country’s economic woes. “Tell me how a coordinated economic message would have changed the outcome in Missouri, Minnesota or Georgia,” says a Senate aide. “We could have danced naked on the table, and it would have been impossible to get the economy to play a central role. Iraq was such an overriding issue.”
The Republicans in the end gained only two Senate seats, giving them a 51-seat majority. It’s not a tidal change like 1980 when a dozen new Republican senators swept into office with Ronald Reagan and gave the GOP a majority, or 1994, when Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America added 54 seats in the House. Numerically, it doesn’t even compare to 2000, when the GOP lost five seats in the Senate and would have lost control if it weren’t for Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie vote. But in Washington, perception is reality, and it would be foolish to pretend the election results are anything but a huge boost for Bush, who strides the world stage like a colossus while Democrats bicker and snipe about who’s to blame.
The story now is the battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, and the first skirmish is underway over who will replace the departing Richard Gephardt as House Democratic leader. The contest is between Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who is currently second in command in the House, and Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee, who phoned talk-show host Don Imus this morning to announce his candidacy for leader.
The conventional wisdom says that Pelosi has the race wrapped up. In fact, Texas Rep. Martin Frost, a serious challenger to Pelosi, today conceded defeat and offered Pelosi his endorsement. “It is clear to me that Nancy Pelosi has the votes of a majority of the caucus,” he wrote in a letter to House Democrats. “In light of this fact, today I am releasing all of my commitments.” Ford insists he’s a serious candidate. “We as a party have to make a very tough decision,” Ford said in a press conference this afternoon. “What can Democrats do over the next two years to not be the loyal opposition or to engage in gridlock?” But the 32-year-old’s candidacy is quixotic. He has no organization, no strategy and no whip operation.
Ford, an African-American, may be able to count on the support of many of the 38 members of the Black Caucus. But Pelosi says she has commitments from at least 110 members. The winner will need no more than 105 votes, a majority of the Democratic Caucus. And in the House, every member wants to be with the leader. The leader decides who gets what committee slots. “You need somebody with stature to do this job,” says a top Democrat. “It’s not Harold Ford. He’s either ignorant or insane.”
Pelosi, 62, would be the first woman to lead either party in either chamber of Congress. She is a liberal from San Francisco who voted against Bush’s war resolution. She is gregarious, telegenic and unafraid to stake out positions that are identifiably left. Pelosi is also a prodigious fund-raiser with a history of generosity toward her colleagues.
The White House is salivating at the prospect of Pelosi as leader. Republicans see her as the perfect vehicle to resurrect the phrase, “San Francisco liberals,” and hammer the Democrats as tax-and-spend throwbacks. Even some Democrats are worried about the label. “We can’t stand a San Francisco liberal,” says one of the party’s old war horses, who worries that installing Pelosi signals a lurch to the left for the party that could be disastrous when the fastest growing group of voters are independents. There are even rumors that two or three conservative members–notably Ralph Hall of Texas and Christopher John of Louisiana–could switch parties. “If Nancy wins, you may see these guys walk across the aisle,” says a Democratic official.
But Pelosi’s job is to put up opposition and energize the debate, and she can do that. “She can be the partisan leader with an edge that the Democrats need,” says a Senate Democrat.
Democrats remember how President Clinton, after losing the House and Senate in 1994, wandered around the White House for a month like Banquo’s ghost until House Speaker Newt Gingrich saved his reelection. Pelosi is no Gingrich, but she could prove useful for Bush to campaign against going into 2004. She could also reinvigorate a party that seems to have totally lost its moorings.
