If you want to know how well a member of the congressional leadership
is fairing, check their fingernails. Inspect the cuticles. Peer at the
epidermis. Any hangnails? Are they in need of a manicure?
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss, knows a lot about the rigors of serving in congressional leadership.
And political palmistry.
“I kept noticing, I kept getting these ridges on my fingernails,” said Lott during a visit to the Capitol this week.
Lott sought out a doctor.
“I said, ‘What is this?’ He said, ‘Well, that’s stress,’ ” said Lott, recalling the conversation.
We already knew that candidates seeking a promotion in the House
Republican leadership ranks were battling tooth and nail after Speaker
John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced his resignation. Perhaps with an
emphasis on the nail. This brings a whole new spin to the term “nail
biter.”
Lott was a member of the House or Senate leadership for about 17 of
the 34 years he served in Congress. He served as House minority whip,
Senate majority whip, Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader,
Senate majority leader (again) before concluding his tour as Senate
minority whip.
And Lott lived the perils of leadership. There’s the pressure. The
second-guessing. The infighting. Every word scrutinized and parsed. It’s
a lot like the current firestorm embroiling House Majority Leader Kevin
McCarthy, a California Republican and the frontrunner to succeed
Boehner.
McCarthy suggested on the Fox News Channel that House Republicans
empaneled the chamber’s Select Committee on Benghazi strictly to quash
the presidential aspirations of Democrat Hillary Clinton. And that sent
the House into a tizzy.
McCarthy’s line was an offhanded comment like the one that swatted Lott from his majority leader perch in December 2002.
It was the 100th birthday party in the Dirksen Senate Office Building
for the late-Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. Thurmond sought the
presidency in 1948 on the Dixiecrat ticket that championed state’s
rights and segregation.
“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him,” Lott
opined at the Thurmond soiree. “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of
the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these
problems over the years, either,”
Lott’s apparent backing of Thurmond’s once-segregationist politics torpedoed him from the majority leader’s suite by Christmas.
“It’s windy when you are in the leadership in the House and Senate,” Lott said.
He says when you serve in leadership, someone is always coming for
you. Always putting you on the spot. He recounted efforts of political
foes who checked into the fidelity of his marriage and his personal
finances.
“What did they finally get me with? My own words,” Lott exclaimed.
Lott’s run in leadership in both the House and Senate is remarkable
because of its longevity. But you can’t avoid the controversy.
“In the leadership, you take on barnacles like a ship at sea and they
start to weight you down after battle,” he said. “Once you get in the
leadership, there ain’t no such thing as purity.”
This is why there is discord in the Republican ranks over McCarthy.
The House Republican Conference will vote behind closed doors on
Thursday to tap a speaker-designate.
But it’s the full House that elects the speaker. House rules dictate
that the successful candidate command not just the most votes -- but an
absolute majority of those casting ballots.
Upon Boehner’s resignation, the House will have 434 seats. That means
the magic number -- if everyone votes for a candidate by name -- is
218. With 246 Republicans in the House by that point, the next GOP
Speaker can only lose 28 votes.
Boehner lost 25 Republicans in the January speaker vote. Think those
who voted for someone besides Boehner aren’t more revved up now than
they were over the winter?
“Nobody has 218 today for speaker,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Kansas
Republican and often an antagonistic voice when it comes to the GOP
leadership. In January, Huelskamp cast his speaker ballot for Rep. Dan
Webster, a Florida Republican who is running again.
Huelskamp says Republicans are watching McCarthy closely after the Benghazi declaration.
“Those comments were not helpful,” he said. “I don’t think that got him one vote.”
Another GOP source who asked not to be identified said some
Republicans are looking for an “excuse” to vote against McCarthy. And
they may have found it.
“Kevin is dealing with some very thin margins on the floor” in the
speakership vote, said Rep. David Jolly , R-Fla., adding the Benghazi
comment “took its toll.”
“It would be helpful, given the way (McCarthy’s Benghazi remarks
were) interpreted if the majority leader clarified his remarks,” said
Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., who also voted for Webster in January.
McCarthy tried to do just that Thursday night during an appearance on Fox’s “Special Report with Bret Baier.”
“I did not intend to imply in any way that the work (of the Benghazi Committee) was political,” McCarthy said.
Congressional observers generally panned McCarthy’s appearance,
saying it failed to clean up the mess. One GOP source suggested that
McCarthy had failed one of his first tests as a speaker candidate. When
asked if he had the necessary 218 votes, McCarthy replied “We’re very
close, yes.”
A failure to secure 218 votes on the first ballot for speaker would
be a blow to McCarthy -- even if he’s ultimately successful.
A second or third ballot for speaker immediately diminishes his
political prowess. It exposes vulnerabilities and reflects the
volatility of House Republicans. No vote for speaker has gone to a
second ballot since 1923. And if McCarthy does emerge the victor, it
might not be for long.
“If he’s lucky, he gets a two-week honeymoon,” said one senior Republican.
“I give him six months,” augured one lawmaker.
On Wednesday, the House voted to avoid a government shutdown. Only 91
Republicans voted yes. Democrats, as is customary these days in the
House, carried the way with 186 yeas. McCarthy voted aye. Webster voted
nay. Some conservatives viewed that roll call tally as a possible litmus
test for speaker.
Oh. And House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, voted nay.
Chaffetz is now tinkering with running for speaker, potentially
disrupting the entire race. Earlier in the week, he called for McCarthy
to apologize for what he said about Benghazi. He also advocated Benghazi
committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., for majority leader.
Chaffetz might not be able to command more votes than McCarthy in the
closed-door conference vote or on the floor. But he can discombobulate
the entire state of affairs.
To wit: The ballot for speaker in the Republican conclave is secret.
But the GOP announces the vote tallies. How can Republicans proceed to a
vote for speaker later this month if McCarthy or anyone else receives
fewer than 218 backers in the conference meeting?
Moreover, presuming McCarthy commands the most votes for speaker in
the conference, how can Republicans immediately vote for a prospective
vacancy in the majority leader’s slot when it’s not clear that the
current majority leader has the votes to prevail in the speaker vote the
floor?
No one has the answers to these questions right now.
There’s a reason why other GOP stalwarts like House Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin; Financial Services Committee
Chairman Jeb Hensarling, Texas; and even Gowdy aren’t pursuing any
leadership position now.
“Where’s the varsity?” asked one House Republican.
Here’s the answer.
“This isn’t a manageable conference right now,” said one House Republican. “We’re too fratricidal.”
In other words, respected lawmakers aren’t pursuing a position in the
GOP ranks because the rank-and-file will eat them alive -- perhaps
immediately.
On Friday, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sent a letter to Congress, begging lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling by November 5.
“Without sufficient cash, it would be impossible for the United
States of America to meet all of its obligations for the first time in
our history,” Lew posited.
An increase in the debt limit is one of the most-toxic votes a member
of Congress can take. A failure to do so could call into question the
credit-worthiness of the U.S. to say nothing of triggering a global
financial shock.
Anyone in leadership -- or pursuing leadership -- is on the hottest of seats right now.
So why would McCarthy put himself through this?
“It was the only chance he has to be speaker, if only for a short period of time,” one lawmaker said.
And what about those passing on a leadership bid now?
“Kevin McCarthy has had this opportunity cast upon him and he knows
it will shorten his career,” said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb. “It
could be seen as an act of humility and leadership character.”
With such a rambunctious group, how could anyone run the House with
authority? If the chamber does elect McCarthy, Trent Lott thinks he
knows how he would succeed.
“He worked with Bill Thomas, the most-impossible person to work for,” said Lott with a laugh.
Thomas is the former House Ways and Means Committee chairman.
McCarthy served as Thomas’s top aide in his California congressional
district. McCarthy won Thomas’s congressional seat when his mentor
retired. Thomas was smart as a whip and wielded a steady hand on the
House’s tax-writing panel. He was also known for sporting one of the
most acerbic, caustic temperaments of any lawmaker in the House.
McCarthy’s nature is a polar opposite of Thomas’s. McCarthy is
genial. A backslapper. Inviting. Non-confrontational. Funny. Some ask if
that’s what the House needs now. Can McCarthy play tough with Tea Party
lawmakers? Will he just go-along-to-get-along with Republicans,
inviting major standoffs on key issues this fall. Can he spar with
Democrats, namely House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
“She goes for the kill when she senses weakness,” said one lawmaker. “You can’t show weakness with her.”
So why would anyone want this job, be it McCarthy, Webster or
Chaffetz? Why would House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., or Budget
Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., want to succeed McCarthy as
majority leader?