Tauscher faults the majority for shutting down the Democratic opposition. Though the Republicans have only the slimmest majority, they have stifled dissent by limiting congressional hearings and floor debate, in effect leaving Democrats speechless. But Democrats have themselves to blame too for their ineffectiveness. “Democrats are screaming for new blood and unified leadership,” says a Democratic Party operative. While Gephardt gets high marks for his dedication to the House, he has his eye on the 2004 presidential race. If control of the House were within grasp, would he seriously contemplate another run for the presidency? And David Bonior, Gephardt’s heir apparent, has set his sights on next year’s Michigan governor’s race. Tired of being Gephardt’s perpetual No. 2, Bonior’s expected exit is a signal to Democrats that their hopes of regaining the majority any time soon are probably futile.
Democrats are still in shock over their dismal showing in the 2000 congressional races. After setting fund-raising records and recruiting unusually high-caliber candidates, they took back only one seat. Explaining what went wrong to the party’s big contributors, and convincing them to bet again on the Democrats, is proving difficult. Next year’s election will be the fourth successive try to regain the majority, and optimism is in short supply. Tauscher likens it to “deal fatigue,” a Wall Street term used when a project you were excited about no longer gets your juices going. Democrats had everything going for them in 2000, and they couldn’t get over the finish line. “There’s a sense that the opportunity has been lost not just for the moment but for the near term as well,” says the Democratic Party official.
Redistricting makes the task even harder. In addition to the real loss of seats because of shifting populations, the continuing uncertainty over where the new lines will be drawn leaves incumbents in limbo and stalls the recruiting process for candidates.
The Democratic National Committee has traditionally focused more on the presidential race, but with Democrats trying to claw their way back into power wherever they can, the DNC is playing a greater role in congressional races. Party chairman Terry McAuliffe is a whirlwind of activity, but some Democrats are skeptical whether his frenetic pace will accrue to the benefit of the party. “He wants to be Pamela Harriman and Ron Brown all in one,” says a former DNC official.
McAuliffe is raising a lot of money, which is his specialty, but he’s also spending substantially to improve the DNC’s operation and reach. The newly created Voting Rights Institute, headed by former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson, is a case in point. Party veterans thought it was a bone thrown to Jackson, who challenged McAuliffe for the chairmanship, and to African-Americans, who are suspicious about the party’s entreaties to Hispanics. But under McAuliffe’s direction, the Voting Rights Institute has turned into a real and costly enterprise, giving skeptics heartburn. McAuliffe’s enthusiasm rubs some the wrong way, but others see his energetic and sometimes abrasive style as just the kind of shock therapy that Democrats need to come back from the dead.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is establishing a leadership PAC this summer that she will officially launch in the fall. Her political allies say it is a preliminary step in a possible Feinstein for President campaign in 2004. “She has a lot to say and a lot of status,” says Tauscher, who is among those urging Feinstein to run. Democrats don’t have a front runner, and Tauscher reasons that Feinstein, as California’s senior senator, “should be in the room.” She has made the shortlist for vice president in at least two elections and is one of the few women in either party with national name recognition and an ability to bankroll a race for the presidency. At age 68, this would likely be Feinstein’s last opportunity to go for the gold. It would also cement her place in history as a pioneer among women in politics. “Part of her legacy is not just public policy, it’s politics,” says Tauscher. “While she doesn’t like to be seen as a politician, she’s a good one.” An added plus: Feinstein was just reelected to another six-year term so she wouldn’t risk her senate seat if she chose to run.
We said in this space last week that Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s decision to forego a presidential run in 2004 should Al Gore run is “evolving.” The source quoted is one of many Lieberman admirers convinced the senator will not step aside after investing time and energy in a potential race that could attract half a dozen hopefuls in addition to Gore. But Lieberman’s communications director, Dan Gerstein, insists his boss’s pledge is very much intact and that those who speculate otherwise suffer from “a lot of wishful thinking.” “There’s no evolution here,” says Gerstein, who catches himself and quickly adds, “Not that we’re pretending we’re creationists.” In case you wondered, Lieberman’s just-in-case campaign is coming along nicely. He raised close to $175,000 at a fundraiser for his PAC last week and he’s planning a trip to New Hampshire in November. “He’s getting flooded with invitations to speak,” says Gerstein. As for Gore, he’s maintaining his sphinxlike silence.
