TALENT SHOW
Rep. James Talent (R., Mo.) is seriously considering challenging Newt Gingrich for Speaker. Talent may provide conservatives and moderates dissatisfied by Speaker Gingrich's performance with the candidate they have been seeking. Talent, elected in 1992, has in a few years earned the respect of his Republican colleagues, both moderate and conservative, for his thoughtfulness, mild manner, and principled conservatism. He is the only member of his class to hold a committee chairmanship. Members of Congress concerned that Rep. Bob Livingston (R., La.), heretofore considered the alternative to Gingrich, would not be much of an improvement have encouraged him to run. ("Gingrich without the advantages," was the verdict of not a few Republicans we spoke to yesterday about Livingston.)

Talent, 42, served as minority leader in Missouri's State House before coming to Congress. His St. Louis congressional district borders that of Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. Talent is a conservative whose lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 97 per cent. His initial base would be among conservatives, especially from the still-large Class of '94. But he could well get the support of Henry Hyde, who sees in Talent the same good judgment Hyde's colleagues see in him and who pointedly refused to endorse Gingrich's re-election yesterday. Hyde's support would reassure many older members and committee chairmen otherwise nervous about elevating a junior member to the Speaker's chair.

Moderates concerned about the GOP's failure to appear compassionate and make inroads among minority groups, meanwhile, may look favorably upon Talent's co-sponsorship, with Rep. J. C. Watts (R., Okla.), of the Community Renewal Act. Talent also has a reputation for working well with moderates, and lacks the abrasive edge that many of them associate with conservatives. Republicans concerned about the Southern dominance of their party's leadership may also be inclined to support him.

Talent does not plan to run on a slate. But other leadership challenges are bubbling, not least Rep. Steve Largent's (R., Okla.) longshot bid to oust Majority Leader Dick Armey, announced at noon today.

Talent had been expected to run for Governor in 2000, and a challenge to the wildly unpopular Gingrich would probably not hurt his chances. The real risk may be if he wins: the next two years are going to be grueling for whoever's in the Speaker's chair.

The Way Out
Republicans would almost certainly have been better off losing control of the House entirely. Now they have the responsibility of running it without the ability to do so. If they had lost, Democrats would then have to deal with the problems of narrow control. Victorious congressional Democrats would be unable to keep their liberalism under wraps, while a strong Republican minority would keep them from achieving their ambitions. Republicans would have plenty of targets, and it is clear that they do better in opposition anyway. And just as George Bush's 1992 loss was probably a prerequisite for the 1994 Republican congressional takeover, the stage would be nicely set for the simultaneous election of a conservative President and a conservative Congress in 2000. True, fund-raising efforts would be hurt--but 1) K Street is now going to hedge its bets, if not bet Democratic, anyway; and 2) Republicans have obviously been relying on fundraising too much.

Perhaps congressional leaders bought this case, and were consciously trying to lose the House--as NR suggested last year in a tongue-in-cheek editorial (see "House Broken," June 30, 1997). If so, they certainly executed this strategy marvelously. But not quite marvelously enough. How typical.

All is not lost. If just six Republicans were persuaded to switch parties and vote for Speaker Gephardt next year, the Democrats would have a one-seat working majority (counting Socialist Bernie Sanders, the only member of their caucus to obey truth-in-advertising laws). So for Chris Shays, Bill Goodling, Tom Davis, Connie Morella, and the incoming Judy Biggert, now is the time to serve your party--by leaving it.

Winning Race
Everything went wrong for the state of Washington's I-200 ballot initiative to ban racial preferences--Democratic Gov. Gary Locke fought hard against it, Big Business spent Big Money to defeat it, the GOP refused to get behind it, and Republicans fared poorly on election day. Despite this, I-200 scored a smashing victory with 58 per cent of the vote. A majority of both men (65 per cent) and white women (51 per cent) supported it. So did every age demographic; all income brackets above $15,000; people at every educational level except high school dropouts, who were too few to count, and post-graduate degree holders, who split 50-50; self-identified moderates; self-identified independents; and even 37 per cent of Democrats. The CNN exit poll, from which these numbers are taken, unfortunately lacked a breakdown by race and ethnicity because 92 per cent of Washington voters were non-Hispanic whites. Because the white vote matched the overall vote of 58 per cent, however, it seems likely that a majority of Asians and Hispanics also favored I-200. Will the Republican powers-that-be finally see that fighting against racial preferences is both a sound principle and a winning idea?

Nice Line
From today's lead Wall Street Journal editorial: ". . . it is clear that the Democratic party's financial constituency base is gambling, trial lawyers, and public unions, a collection of interests more appropriate to a party seeking power in, say, Russia."