January 13, 2006,
9:26 p.m. Congressman John Shadegg's entry into the race for House majority leader has galvanized conservatives, just as Club for Growth president and former Pennsylvania congressman Pat Toomey said it would. But despite getting endorsements from Club for Growth, National Review and an influential group of bloggers* that includes Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin, some congressmen who have already endorsed either acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt or Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner told NRO Friday that Shadegg waited too late to get into the race. Nevertheless, over 100 of the 231 GOP House members have not yet publicly declared their support for either of the two candidates already running. Given that it only takes 116 votes to win, the voting is secret, and the election is three weeks away, Shadegg still has a chance to convince his fellow Republicans that he is the candidate that will restore the values of limited government and fiscal responsibility to the party. Shadegg admitted Members gave various reasons for this. Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana told NRO that Blunt's performance in his previous job as House whip and as acting majority leader since Tom DeLay stepped down merits a promotion. "Inflation is down. Unemployment's down. The president's economic package has been doing very well. Roy's helped steer us through a lot of close votes, and I don't see any reason not to reward him with the majority-leader position," Burton said. Other members told NRO that their support for either candidate was more personal, stemming from the favors Blunt's done for them as acting House leader, or from time they spent working with Boehner on the education committee. And for 13-term Texas congressman Ralph Hall, who's also in the Blunt camp, it's just a matter of loyalty. "Once you confirm to someone, you don't just withdraw that support unless you find out they're a Lindbergh kidnapper." But Shadegg still has a chance to win over conservative Republicans like Dana Rohrabacher, a nine-term representative from California who initially backed Blunt but told NRO on Friday afternoon that he had moved back into the "undecided" category. Rohrabacher said he was scheduled to speak with Shadegg over the weekend, and that he would make up his mind sometime next week after hearing Shadegg's positions on illegal immigration, China, and other policy areas important to him. Shadegg will have to engage in scores of conversations like these over the coming weeks if he hopes to chip away at Blunt's and Boehner's lists of names. Congressman Jeff Flake, one of Shadegg's colleagues on the conservative Republican Study Committee, joined Rep. Charles Bass earlier this week in asking members to refrain from making commitments until the candidates committed to making specific reforms that would put the party back on a path toward fiscal sanity. He told NRO that Shadegg's candidacy will broaden the debate over ideas as the leadership race moves forward. "This is a great development," Flake told NRO Friday. "What Shadegg does is, ever since [former House Majority Leader] Dick Armey's departure, we've had a void as far as people who care about policy. John puts the focus back on ideas. The immediate effect is to force the other candidates to come forward on their reform agendas, because Shadegg is going to be bold. Blunt has been using personal friendships and the levers of power to get commitments, because he hasn't come out with any policies that he's going to change. It's going to be much more interesting now." Flake is optimistic about Shadegg's chances to stay competitive in the race. "I think a lot of people that were committed to [Blunt or Boehner] thought that was the field was going to be just two candidates," Flake said. "Everyone needs to remember it's a secret ballot." * CORRECTION: Unlike the Club for Growth and National Review, the group of bloggers did not explicitly endorse Shadegg. Their statement welcomed his entry into the race, but did not actually endorse him. Stephen Spruiell reports on the media for National Review Online's Media Blog. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||