1 Fix, More Problems for GOP

Rep. Tom DeLay’s decision to stop battling for his former House leadership job helps remove a huge distraction from Republican efforts to recover from a stormy 2005 that put President Bush and the party on the defensive.

But DeLay’s Saturday announcement that he was giving up his bid may create as many problems as it solves.

It has set off a divisive power struggle to succeed him as the House’s permanent majority leader -- and could spark the overthrow of other leaders.

Also, whoever is picked to succeed DeLay will be thrust into a job that, now more than ever, requires the kind of iron-fisted leadership that was the Texas Republican’s trademark.

Bush’s second-term priorities -- overhauling Social Security and rewriting the tax code -- have faltered, and Republicans are struggling to refocus on an agenda of cutting taxes, reducing federal spending and cracking down on illegal immigration. But the fate of these initiatives is cloudy.

House Republicans had shown signs of splintering late last year, after DeLay was forced to temporarily give up his leadership post because of his indictment in Texas on money laundering charges.

“While Tom DeLay was a public-relations nightmare, he also was a strong leader, a talented vote counter, arm twister and strategist,” said Charlie Cook, a Washington political analyst who publishes the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “Since he stepped down three months ago, it’s been a horror show for House Republicans.”

DeLay was clearly missed by his colleagues, but he also had become damaged goods. And after former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who had close ties to DeLay, pleaded guilty last week to corruption charges and sent many Republicans running for political cover, it became clear to some that DeLay would have to go if the GOP had any hope of changing the subject in this year’s congressional campaigns.

“You don’t want that kind of distraction moving forward in 2006,” said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster. Now, every Republican House member “doesn’t have to go around answering the question, ‘Do you think Tom DeLay should resign?’ ”

Instead, Republicans face another political question: How much more do they need to do -- in making leadership changes and embracing legislative initiatives such as tighter rules for lobbyists -- to truly distance their party from the taint of the Abramoff scandal?

Some Republicans believe an aggressive anti-corruption agenda is needed. They argue that although DeLay may no longer loom as a leadership figure, his imprint will remain on the way the party raises money and conducts legislative strategy.

Over the last decade, DeLay built powerful new connections between the party and Washington’s “K Street” lobbying corridor, harnessing the finances and political support of various interest groups behind a conservative agenda. His skill in doing so gave the GOP strong fundraising advantages, but it created an atmosphere of coziness that Abramoff was able to exploit.

Some of the House’s junior Republican members are saying that if the GOP wants to burnish its image with the public, perhaps fresh faces should be brought into the leadership ranks. Although House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) appeared secure in his post, other leaders might be challenged.

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) called Saturday for a “potential housecleaning” and full disclosure of GOP leaders’ relationships with lobbyists.

“We have to reaffirm that the people who are in positions of leadership have the credentials, the moral credibility, to lead,” he said.

Still, the Republicans initially being mentioned as contenders for majority leader have been close to DeLay and are skilled players in the political fundraising machine he established.

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the majority whip temporarily serving as majority leader, is a DeLay protege who received $8,500 in campaign contributions linked to Abramoff. Last week, he announced he would give that amount to charity.

In June 2003, the Washington Post reported that Blunt had tried to insert into legislation a provision benefiting Philip Morris USA Co. at a time when he had a close personal relationship with its lobbyist and when his son worked for the cigarette maker.

Another possible candidate for majority leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, also had financial links to Abramoff.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, he received $32,500 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and the lobbyist’s clients -- more than DeLay did.

And in the mid-1990s, Boehner was criticized by public interest groups for passing out campaign contributions from tobacco companies to lawmakers on the House floor.

If Blunt or Boehner became majority leader, it would leave them open to Democratic charges that they remain steeped in a “culture of corruption” in Washington.

“Neither [Blunt nor Boehner] presents a stark change in the leadership,” said a Republican strategist who asked not to be named when discussing the two lawmakers. “There is a certain amount of sympathy for generation-skipping, for reaching outside the leadership circle entirely” in finding a successor to DeLay.

That approach, however, would risk delegating power to a lawmaker with less experience in the complex business of running the House.

The challenges of that job became clear when Blunt took over temporarily from DeLay. The House struggled to pass crucial budget bills and postponed final action on Bush’s tax cut proposals.

“There is a lot of concern about who can actually do the job,” said former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), who remains in close touch with party leaders. “It has become clear that DeLay was the centerpiece holding the [House] Republican majority together. People understand they have to run the place. It’s not just about PR.”

Some Republicans believe that Bush might have to step into the breach and play a more aggressive role in advancing his legislative agenda.

“He may have to take a little bit more time and a little bit more involvement in getting some of the tough part of this agenda through,” said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.).

Whatever Republicans do in their new leadership elections, the team that emerges probably will benefit from shedding the shaky status of the temporary leadership structure that has been in place.

“It’s very sad for [DeLay], but I think it’s an opportunity for clarity and a sense of mission for an election year,” said Mark Isakowitz, a Republican lobbyist close to House leaders.