|
 he
news that Dick Armey is leaving Congress at the end of this term
has naturally prompted speculation about who will replace him as
House majority leader. The most frequently mentioned "candidates"
appear to be Tom DeLay of Texas and Robert Portman of Ohio. DeLay
is the majority whip, which is technically right below majority
leader in the leadership hierarchy, although he has exercised more
power than Armey has. Portman is a well-regarded conservative with
close ties to the White House. The press is hoping for a DeLay vs.
Portman race, which it would cast as DeLay vs. the White House.
Don't hold
your breath. DeLay may well sew this thing up before there's even
a race. He will be aided in this endeavor by conservative backbenchers
who regard him as their champion. They like Portman, but they want
someone in the leadership who is independent of Bush. As for the
White House, what point is there in its getting involved? A majority
leader DeLay would almost always be an effective ally. Sure, Democrats
have demonized him, but he won't bring any more bad press to Republicans
as majority leader than he does now. If the White House were to
back an opponent to DeLay, on the other hand, there's no guarantee
it would win.
The next question
is who replaces DeLay as whip. That's not so clear. But the best-positioned
possible candidate is Roy Blunt of Missouri, a protégé
of DeLay who's also close to the White House.
Trade
Fallout
Speaking
of the House Republican leadership, it's pondering whether to punish
members who voted against trade-promotion authority. Aides say that
those who "had to" vote no because of protectionist sentiment
in their district-like Robert Aderholt of Alabama and Frank LoBiondo
of New Jersey-should get a pass. They're also giving a pass to members
who voted no because of sincere policy objections, however misguided
they were (e.g., Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland).
But they're
annoyed with Mark Foley and Adam Putnam of Florida, who voted no
even after House leaders worked long and hard to address their concerns
about the bill. If either one had voted for trade promotion, Republicans
would not have needed to lean on Robin Hayes of North Carolina.
Hayes voted yes, and the bill passed by one vote-but now Republicans
are worried about his reelection prospects, and blaming the Floridians
for creating the problem.
Foley and Putnam
have gotten most of the attention. But what about the New York noes?
Jim Walsh and Ben Gilman are Republicans with seniority and clout-Gilman
was even chairman of the international-relations committee, for
crying out loud. They win reelection comfortably. The cost of voting
yes would have been a lot lower for them than for Foley, Putnam,
or Hayes.
Some of the
commentary after the vote suggested that its closeness foretells
difficulty passing future free-trade legislation. Maybe. But the
Senate will likely pass trade promotion, too, making it possible
for the Bush administration to negotiate trade deals. And in recent
years, actual trade deals have usually passed Congress easily.
When Congress is voting on trade as an abstraction, opponents dominate
the debate with frightening scenarios. When there are benefits on
the table, on the other hand, the proponents tend to win. NAFTA
passed, the last global trade deal passed, and so did the trade
deal with China. Negotiations with other countries will be difficult.
But whatever deals the administration comes up with are likely to
pass. The House vote was the protectionists' big opportunity in
this decade, and they just missed it.
“Cloning,
Stem Cells, and beyond”
Our Washington readers may be interested in a discussion being held
tonight on that very subject. Eric Cohen is one of the best writers
against human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and the like.
Ronald Bailey one of the best advocates of it. America's Future
Foundation is having them square off, with Adam Wolfson of The Public
Interest moderating. They'll be at 1706 New Hampshire Ave NW; drinks
at 7, discussion and light dinner at 7:30.
|
