O.C. Conservatives Face Loss of Congressional Clout : Politics: Republican representatives react with outrage, resignation to uncertain future with Clinton.

For Orange County Republicans and other congressional conservatives, the light at the end of the tunnel flickered out Tuesday, leaving them stranded without an ally in the White House for the first time in 12 years.

Some took the news badly.

“It’s time for guerrilla warfare,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), who was elected to his third term with 54% of the vote. “The Democrats have kept every wacko and liberal nutcase locked up in the back room for the last six months (of the presidential campaign). Now the inmates are going to take over the asylum.”

But others, including Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside), who represents South County, were surprisingly sanguine about the prospects of a Clinton presidency.

“Frankly, if (President-elect Bill) Clinton and the new Congress can move the country forward, I’ll be right with them,” said Packard, a former dentist who was elected to his sixth term in Congress by a 61% margin. “I won’t change my stripes . . . but I think I’ve demonstrated that I can work with the other side of the aisle as well as anybody.”

The chasm separating the reactions of Rohrabacher and Packard is a measure of the uncertainty facing conservative Republicans who in past years have been able to exploit their close ties with Ronald Reagan and George Bush to push their agenda on Capitol Hill. Even though they were badly outnumbered by Democrats, the right-wing stalwarts made frequent tactical use of presidential favors and the threat of presidential vetoes to help shape legislation.

With that option gone, some conservatives fear that any influence they had has evaporated.

“We’ll have a hell of a lot more time to play golf,” said one congressional aide, who asked not to be named. “The bad news is we’ll have to pay for it ourselves.”

One lobbyist, who insisted on anonymity, said that he will no longer rely on Orange County’s conservative congressional delegation to help his clients. Now that both California senators are Democrats, the lobbyist said, “what I’ll do is go to the two senators to get something done rather than rely on a conservative Republican who no one in the Administration will listen to.”

But others suggested that if Clinton wants to avoid the mistakes made by the last Democrat to occupy the White House, Jimmy Carter, the Arkansas governor may be forced to enlist Republicans in an effort to moderate the liberal impulses of the Democratic congressional leadership. And that, in turn, would restore some Republican clout.

“I think (congressional Democrats) are going to try to shove everything upstairs to (Clinton) to sign, just as they did to Carter,” said conservative Rep. Dick Armey (R-Tex.). “But I think (Clinton) knows that would make his presidency a one-term personal failure.”

Instead, Armey said, Clinton may try to forge a coalition with conservative Democrats and Republicans to prevent some of the more objectionable bills from reaching his desk.

Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, said that Clinton is not likely to completely shut out the GOP.

“Democrats are going to need Republican votes in a lot of instances,” Ornstein said. “But it is something that could be easily overplayed. (Conservatives) are going to have to walk a fairly fine line early on between being nasty and destructive . . . and being fairly straightforward in trying to help govern the country.”

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), who served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, said that only time will sort out the relationship between Clinton and the congressional conservatives. “Bill Clinton, during at least some portions of his campaign, has attempted to stress moderation in fiscal matters,” he said. “Something has to give, because the coalition that elected him includes (Rep.) Maxine Waters and (Sen.-elect) Barbara Boxer and other traditional economic liberals.”

If Clinton moves to the left, conservatives will have an opportunity to highlight in the most public way the fundamental differences between their economic philosophy and the Administration’s. If Clinton resists a push to the left, Cox said, “I’d be delighted to work with the Administration on a policy of economic growth through lower taxes.”

One local Republican who is unlikely to feel the warmth of a Clinton embrace is Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove). One of President Bush’s most partisan supporters, Dornan savaged Clinton almost nightly during the waning days of the 102nd Congress in a series of lengthy speeches on the House floor.

Among other things, Dornan questioned whether Clinton, as an anti-war protester, had become a dupe of the KGB during a student trip to Moscow in 1969-70. Dornan also referred to the Arkansas governor as a “world-class womanizer/adulterer” and a “classic draft dodger.”

“It’s hard to imagine any member of Congress who will have less influence in the Clinton White House than Bob Dornan,” said Les Francis, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “There may be somebody, but I’ll be damned if I can think of who it might be.”

Francis noted that Dornan, who spent more than $1 million in the 1992 campaign, was elected to an eighth term with barely 50% of the vote. His Democratic opponent, Robert Banuelos, raised less than $5,000 but earned 41% of the vote. The balance went to the candidate of the Libertarian Party.

“We felt all along that ’94 would be the best time to go after Dornan,” Francis said, “because the registration will change even more” in the Democrats’ favor. Given his apparent vulnerability and his relationship with the President-elect, “I would guess Dornan would be a target for a strong effort in ‘94,” Francis said.

In a characteristically combative reply, Dornan promised Wednesday to continue to press thorns into Clinton’s side, starting with a two-week stint as guest host of the nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh radio show, scheduled for December.

“If I’m the No. 1 focus of anger by the draft-dodging philanderer and his team, that’s fine with me,” Dornan said of the President-elect.

As for his own electoral prospects, Dornan invited the Democrats to come after him in 1994--if he decides to run.

Despite his 50% showing, Dornan said that he outpolled the Republican registration in his Democrat-majority district by 9.1 percentage points, a feat unequaled, he said, by any other member of the Southern California congressional delegation. Dornan said he believes that Ross Perot’s presidential candidacy siphoned off votes to the Libertarian candidate in his race, who received nearly 9% of the vote.

In an unusually candid assessment of conservative fortunes, the former Air Force fighter pilot sharply criticized Bush, whom he has fervently defended during two presidential campaigns.

“People say to me, ‘What did your warm, close friendship with Bush get you?’ I’ll tell you. One movie, a stinking Woody Allen film. One state dinner, with the prime minister of Tunisia. . . . And a St. Patrick’s Day dinner in 1989. That was it. Oh, and I got to lead the American delegation to the 50th anniversary celebration of the Battle of Britain,” Dornan said.

“There wasn’t much conservative input into the White House after (former Chief of Staff John) Sununu left,” the congressman added.

Other conservative activists agreed that the departure of George Bush from the White House may not be as bad for their cause as some of their colleagues believe.

“I don’t really see that George Bush was a rock of strength for anything about which I much cared,” said Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus. “I’m sure Bill Clinton is terrible, but I don’t find much to miss with George.”