Panetta, Thomas Gain Leadership Points in Bitter House Fight : California Congressmen--Scars, Honors

California Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley) had the House floor, summing up his case for seating Democrat Frank McCloskey as the four-vote winner in the bitterly disputed election in Indiana’s 8th Congressional District. On the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield) was screaming.

“Point of error! Point of error!” Thomas shouted. “Will the gentleman yield?”

“No. I’d like to finish my remarks first,” Panetta answered, completing his case as calmly as possible under the circumstances. Thomas, pointing accusingly across the aisle at his adversary and complaining, “You wouldn’t yield,” stormed back to his seat.

For the last two weeks, the two lawyerly congressmen from adjacent California districts led the House through one of its most bitter, partisan battles in years. But despite their very differing styles--Panetta the cool and easy-going Democrat, Thomas the intense and somewhat humorless Republican--both emerged with reputations enhanced.

In the end, the Democratic-controlled House sided with Panetta and decided that McCloskey had defeated Republican Richard McIntyre by four votes. But beyond that outcome, the Indiana election dispute may prove significant for propelling the two California congressmen higher into the leadership ranks of their parties.

For four months, the McCloskey-McIntyre election and subsequent political sideshow had consumed both Panetta, the chairman of the three-member House task force that reviewed the election returns, and Thomas, the task force’s only Republican.

Both men emerged tired and beaten down by a dispute punctuated by shouting matches, name-calling, obstructionist parliamentary tactics, a 14-hour, all-night protest session of the House and, in the end, a Republican walkout Wednesday when the House finally voted to seat McCloskey.

Neither had much to gain in their California districts from an issue that mattered mostly to Washington and to Indiana’s 8th District. But according to congressmen of both parties watching from the sidelines, both Panetta and Thomas demonstrated to their House colleagues their considerable rhetorical and analytical abilities.

Both men--Panetta the lawyer and Thomas the former college professor--are known for their attention to detail, their relentless pursuit of their goals and their debating skills. For those reasons, their parties’ leaders chose them to manage their troops in the election dispute.

Fourth-term Democrat Panetta, a former Republican who served as a top civil rights official in the Nixon Administration but bailed out long before Watergate, suffered through what one California Democrat called “unjust personal abuse” as a result of his task force’s recommendation to seat McCloskey rather than McIntyre.

“Far from hurting him,” concluded House Assistant Majority Leader Thomas J. Foley (D-Wash.), “the dignity with which he’s borne this has heightened his respectability in the House. He started from a tremendously high plane and has grown from that. The unbelievable thing is that he’s run into . . . the suggestion he’s operated in ways other than to be fair.”

Of the more obscure Thomas, who served four years in the California Assembly, Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.) said: “He handled it like a master. He did not just sit there and let it happen. Bill Thomas has, as a result of this issue, been elevated to the ranks of the general leaders of our conference.”

Rep. Jim Leach, a Republican from Iowa, compared the two men’s efforts over the “gut issue” of an election outcome to “two thoughtful attorneys representing opposing positions in a highly inflammatory case.” He said he would be pleased to have either represent him in court.

Both Thomas and Panetta, Leach said, have worked hard in the House. “Bill is carving out a real leadership role in the Republican Party,” Leach said. “He’s widely respected, comes from an important state, he’s not identified with the extreme wing of the party--he’s just a careful conservative, and I think that’s what the party needs more of.”

Not all congressmen, however, believe that the experience will serve both Panetta and Thomas well. Most criticism comes from the opposition party.

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, one of 19 Democrats who voted with Republicans for a special election rather than to seat McCloskey, decried what he called “claptrap” directed at Panetta, whom Frank called “very bright, very thoughtful.”

And referring to Thomas, Frank said: “I think Bill got kind of hurt blowing his cool.”

Weber, who during the dispute called the Democrats “slime,” said of Panetta: “His reputation on the Republican side has been permanently damaged. We do not think he has treated us fairly. We believe Leon allowed himself to be manipulated by the Democratic leadership.”

From the beginning, the lines were drawn in the tug-of-war over the Indiana seat. Republicans condemned the conclusion of the task force, while Democrats called it “fair and credible.” The early condemnation and charges made it difficult for any wavering members to go against the quickly established party positions, although 19 Democrats eventually voted for a special election, refuting the slim McCloskey victory endorsed by Panetta and House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass).

In the aftermath, the view among members of Panetta’s and Thomas’ own parties is that both men mastered the intricate facts, argued them persuasively and battled heroically. Outside their own parties, Panetta, who refrained from personal attacks, received slightly better reviews than Thomas, who was criticized privately and obliquely by some Republicans who said they would not have used his characterizations.

Early on, Thomas called the task force conclusion a “rape” and later argued that his and others’ sometime highly personal attacks were justified. In an interview, Thomas defended his choice of words. “Talk to a rape victim,” he said. “Ask them after it’s over if they can just forget about it. I feel personally violated.”

He reached for a dictionary and read one of the definitions aloud: “Rape: an outrageous violation. If somebody feels offended by my choosing that term, they don’t understand the depth of the feelings. Many people told me that they were amazed at how controlled I was.”

Panetta, meanwhile, said: “Nobody likes to have their character or integrity attacked. The attacks sometimes draw the more immediate attention . . . but they really don’t last. What lasts is the quality of whatever work you do.”