After Armey
Tom DeLay, moving up.

By John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru
December 12, 2001 12:20 p.m.

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.