Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

September 17, 2002 9:00 a.m. Majority Report Can Republicans hold the House? By Kate O’Beirne, NR Washington Editor From the September 30, 2002, issue of National Review.

ince 1994, when Republicans won 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time in 40 years, their majority in that chamber has dwindled to a perilous six votes. This handful of GOP seats has meant victory in the House for virtually all of President Bush's domestic agenda. What happens next — that is to say, whether the House becomes Speaker Gephardt's graveyard for the president's priorities during the remainder of his term — depends on the GOP's ability to defend its majority this November. Although in early September most observers give the edge to the GOP, the political environment remains chancy.

That the president seriously wants a Republican House is a safe bet. Prior to Labor Day, Vice President Cheney had made appearances to boost GOP candidates in almost every competitive district; and the president himself had raised well over $100 million in 50 fundraising events. Furthermore, while White House advisers typically hesitate to risk a president's popularity in tough local races, President Bush's clout is being tested where GOP wins aren't a sure bet. On one day in early September, he campaigned for the Republican candidate for an open Democratic seat in Indiana and for an endangered GOP incumbent in Kentucky. Majority Whip Tom DeLay sees the Bush White House as more helpful to congressional candidates than any previous one of either party.

As in years past, there are relatively few competitive House races this campaign season. When the risk-averse parties divvied up the spoils during the redistricting after the 2000 census, the Republicans netted only a small advantage; as a result, over 90 percent of incumbents fit comfortably in districts designed for perpetual job security. Although there is at least some competition in about 56 races, Republicans currently see only 35 seats as potential toss-ups. Atypically, however, some veteran members are among the most vulnerable: Thanks to redistricting that has them campaigning in less friendly territory, Maryland's Connie Morella and North Carolina's Robin Hayes are on the endangered list. Republican incumbents in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi have been tossed into districts where they face Democratic incumbents. And Republicans Anne Northup in Kentucky and Heather Wilson in New Mexico again face tough races of the kind they have had since they were first elected.

Few House freshmen are among the most vulnerable members; Jim Ellis, executive director of Tom DeLay's leadership PAC, attributes this to the Democrats' inability to recruit formidable opponents. "I think it's the 'minority mindset' setting in," explains Ellis, who recognizes that when Democrats were in the majority in Congress, Republicans had difficulty persuading state lawmakers to forfeit their posts to make an uphill fight in the hope of serving with a frustrated congressional minority. In addition, the recruiting season was already over when corporate scandals spread far beyond Enron, the budget deficit ballooned, and the war on terrorism appeared to stall.

Ellis thinks the GOP can expect to pick up two to seven seats, but his analysis of the competitive races underscores that the parties' opportunities are evenly matched. The GOP's current polls indicate that 24 of the 35 most competitive contests lean Republican. Given the fact that a couple of open GOP seats are in jeopardy, if Republicans won all 24 of those races, they would still have a net loss of two seats, and see their majority shrink from six seats to just four. There's clearly very little margin for error, and this ought to dictate caution in making any ultimate prediction. The eleven remaining toss-ups include six Republican seats, one Democratic seat, two incumbent-vs.-incumbent matches, and two new seats. Should Democrats take more than their share of these toss-ups, or a few unpleasant surprises deny the GOP victories in some of the races now leaning their way, there will be a Democratic majority in the House.

GOP pollster David Winston cautiously ventures that Republicans will "barely" hold the majority. Winston adds four new elements in this year's election to the conventional mix that has the White House party losing seats in the off year. He points out, first, that there is a rare divergence between the number of people who approve of the president — Bush's numbers are high — and the number of those who think the country is headed in the right direction. What happens, electorally, to the party of a president who is viewed favorably, but as presiding over a country "heading in the wrong direction"?

Second, the stock market this year is an issue distinct from the perennial issues of "jobs" and "the economy." Winston thinks that politicians and the media are unsure how to handle the health of the market as a political issue. Club for Growth president Stephen Moore has his own election-forecasting formula: "If the market is below 8,500 the Republicans lose, if it's above 8,500 they win." Moore sees the slumping stock market as only one of many issues that have Republicans playing defense. "Even our best candidates are on the defensive on corporate scandals, the budget deficit, Social Security, and the stock market," he says.

The third unique factor facing politicians this year is that the country remains so evenly divided between the parties: For the first time in over 100 years, the public has gone through three election cycles without really committing to either party. Fourth and finally, the results in some recent primaries offer evidence of what Winston calls the "values shifting" that has been at work since 9/11: In Georgia, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney were both called to task by erstwhile supporters who became less enamored with their sharp edges since the terrorist attacks. And in New York, Andrew Cuomo was forced out of his primary race owing in part to Democratic voters' disapproval of his partisan assault on Republican governor George Pataki's role in the aftermath of 9/11.

If one legacy of last September's attacks is the public's impatience with politicians who appear to be trying to rack up partisan points on important issues like corporate corruption and the war on terrorism, President Bush should be able to draw on the reservoir of scrupulous nonpartisanship he has built up since coming to Washington as "a uniter, not a divider." Over the next several weeks, war with Iraq will preoccupy Congress — and playing politics with the war on terrorism could be fatal for Democrats.

Republicans already enjoy a name-brand advantage with the public when it comes to personal-safety issues. In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, the GOP had a commanding two-to-one advantage on handling the issue of national security and terrorism. The 51 to 25 percent margin Republicans enjoy on this issue among registered voters is far greater than the negligible advantage Democrats now have on the economy and the budget deficit. During a recent appearance on Meet the Press, Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, who heads her party's congressional campaign committee, did the familiar Democratic dance on the war: She quickly partnered cheek to cheek with the president on fighting terrorism, before sidestepping away to implausibly insist that domestic issues will dominate this year's campaigns.

The war on terrorism, including the military action against Iraq, will shape the battle for the House. President Bush has no margin for error in either fight.