Centerfield

Shadegg woulda been better, but Blunt woulda been bad.

Posted by: Tully at February 2, 2006 02:31 PM

Hmmm. That's the interesting thing about centrism. Of the three, we got our centrist.

'Course, as I understand it, it took a second vote to get him, no? Something about the number of votes on the first round not being equal to the number of people in the room? Or was that just a rumor?

Posted by: StantheMan at February 2, 2006 02:33 PM

I preferred Shadegg but perhaps Boehner is a gentle lean towards bi-partisanship and civility.

So if a leader of the Centrist community had a meeting with Boehner what would be on the list?

First might be taking advantage of the current momentum to establish rules and laws to encourage bi-partisanship. R's must recognize that the D's will eventually win control.

Bi-partisan commissions to hammer out compromise on Tax reform, Energy alternatives and independence, Health reform, SS...

The window of cooperation opens only so often.

Posted by: Paul at February 2, 2006 02:34 PM

So maybe the GOP caucus isn't tone deaf after all--they must hear the music. Regardless of what the Democrats may say about Boehner's ties to K-street, this is a major defeat for Tom DeLay. First of all, four months ago, it looked like no one had the muscle to push DeLay aside. Even when he temporarily stepped aside, he was able to force Blunt as his fill in, even after Hastert had already indicated that he preferred Drier. I smell rebellion in the ranks...and I like it.

Posted by: AR at February 2, 2006 02:47 PM

There were two votes because there were three players (and a wild card--Jim Ryun didn't run but got votes) and no one got the absolute majority needed on the first ballot. Blunt had 110 and Boehner 79, 117 were needed. So the low vote totals got bounced (Shadegg 40 & Ryun 2) and they re-balloted. Came in 122 to 109 Boehner/Blunt on that round.

Posted by: Tully at February 2, 2006 02:52 PM

The Ryun votes were actually Shadegg votes. By rule the last place vote getter is dropped from the next ballot so two of Shadegg's supporters voted for Ryun. They obviously knew that if they hadn't Shadegg would have been automatically dropped, who then made the point moot by withdrawing before the second ballot. I think there is a bit of rebellion going on here.... Boehner got all of Shadegg's votes suggesting that their was a deal intended to stop Blunt.

I think time will tell if this is an attempt to rid the party of Delay, and if it worked... Watch what happens in the May contest for Majority Whip, House Conference Chair, and Deputy Whip... If Blunt, Pryce, and Cantor draw serious challenges from reform candidates it will be even more of a sign that House Republicans get it. I for one think it is time to clean house and hope that all three posts change hands.

Posted by: Mathew at February 2, 2006 03:03 PM

Makes sense to me, Matthew. Shadegg "threw" to Boehner when it became obvious he couldn't get the votes, rather than risk Boehner getting bounced on the next ballot instead and Blunt getting in when Shadegg couldn't assemble a majority. A good sign for reform.

Posted by: Tully at February 2, 2006 03:12 PM

I have to assume that if Shadegg had come in ahead of Boehner on the first ballot, Boehner woulda tossed the ball to him. Nice play.

Posted by: Tully at February 2, 2006 03:15 PM

This is kind of a giggle.

"The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting."

http://rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/12015-1.html

Posted by: Bob J Young at February 2, 2006 03:27 PM

"The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting."

That's nothing new...lol. Wasn't it King County in Washington State that recorded more votes than registered voters in the last statewide race?

Posted by: AR at February 2, 2006 03:34 PM

That story has faded a bit... It turns out that all they did was not include one of the area delegates that doesn't get a floor vote, but can participate in leadership elections.

Posted by: Mathew at February 2, 2006 03:48 PM

I think this is probably the smart move.

Posted by: Simon at February 2, 2006 05:03 PM

Democrats will no doubt begin to attack Boehner's K Street connections, the one reasoned I believed Shadegg to be a better candidate

Isn't this the guy handing out tobacco money on the house floor during a vote on tobacco?

but because of his demeanor, telegenic looks, and his pragmatic approach to public policy, I do not think the new Majority Leader will be as easy to knock around as Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich.

Well he looks better so I guess its OK.

Posted by: rob at February 3, 2006 02:39 PM

No, it wasn't... That was Blunt, but thank you for commenting.

Posted by: Mathew at February 3, 2006 02:40 PM

Isn't this the guy handing out tobacco money on the house floor during a vote on tobacco?

Apparently so. As head of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Boehner has also been criticized for inserting protectionist provisions into student loan legislation that would prevent consumers from getting lower rates on their student loans--this from a politician who has accepted rather lavish gifts from Sallie Mae, the nation's largest provider of student loans.

Jeremy Lott wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article about the race to replace Delay as House Majority leader. Like many here, he endorsed John Shadegg whom he described as the "principled" "Golderwaterite" in the race while offering slightly less flattering characterizations of Blunt and Boehner.

Apparently Shadegg was right afterall when he claimed that his "level of taint" was less than his two opponents.

Posted by: nicrivera at February 3, 2006 07:18 PM

If you want to do comparative beholdeness to lobbyists, nic, you might in fairness include this information from the USA Today article you cited: "Boehner gets most of his special-interest money from insurance and tobacco companies. Lobbyists gave him $30,250 in 2003-04, far less than the $211,300 that went to the top House recipient, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that studies fundraising."

Posted by: PatHMV at February 4, 2006 08:46 AM

PatHMV,

In fairness, I shall point out that my posting was in direct response to the exchange between two posters in which the first poster asked Isn't this the guy handing out tobacco money on the house floor during a vote on tobacco? to which the second poster replied No, it wasn't... That was Blunt, but thank you for commenting. Thus, my reponse served to 1) answer a question posed by one poster, and 2) correct an erroneous statement written by another poster.

As to your suggesting that, in fairness, I should have mentioned Democratic Congressman John Murtha's lobbying ties, the thought to do so never even crossed my mind since the focus of the thread had been the race to succeed Tom Delay as House Majority leader--a position which, needless to say, Democrat John Murtha was not in the running for. But since we're talking about fairness, why stop at Murtha? Why not list every politician who has ties to lobbyists, which would be virtually every Democrat and Republican in congress?

As to why I felt the need to include Boehner's inserting of protectionist provisions into student loan legislation in favor of student lending companies such as Sally Mae and at the expense of student customers, that was merely my way of bringing some perspective to the generally favorable response on this blog to Boehner's ascension to power. A lot of politicians insert provisions into bills that benefit their lobbyists. Not every one of those politicians, however, is running for the position of House Majority leader in the guise of a reformer.

When the race for House Majority Leader was shaping up, most of the posters here seemed in agreement that between Blunt, Boehner, and Shadegg, Congressman Shadegg was the most principled on the three and the one most likely to enact true reform (a position that I largely agreed with). However, upon hearing that Boehner (and not Shadegg) had secured this position, the response on this blog has suddenly tilted towards Well, Boehner may have not been our first choice, but we can pretend that he's a reformer too.

As a wise man once said, the problem with government is not the abuse of power--it's the power to abuse. If the heads of all these congressional committees were stripped of their power to insert protectionist provisions or pet-project earmarks into their legislation (a power which the Constitution never gave them in the first place), then the issue of lobbyists would become a moot point. Yet, when corruption scandals erupt, the typical Democrat and Republican response is to chalk them up to an issue of ethics and simply toss out the tainted politician in favor of the supposed reformer. However, initiating a changing of the guard without addressing the underlying problem isn't true reform. It's simply putting a new face on an old problem.

Posted by: nicrivera at February 4, 2006 01:42 PM