Race for House Speaker Focuses on 2 Candidates

The race to succeed House Speaker Newt Gingrich focused on two men Saturday as Republicans plunged into a far-reaching debate about what kind of leader and political strategy they want for the post-Gingrich era.

A potentially formidable candidate for speaker, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer (R-Texas), announced he would not seek the top leadership post--a disappointment to conservatives who had seen him as the best advocate for the tax-cutting policies they want to push.

Archer’s decision heightened the likelihood that the main contenders for the speakership will be House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston (R-La.), the front-runner, and Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), who already holds a mid-level leadership post.

A Livingston aide said Saturday that his boss has commitments from several committee chairmen and more than 90 Republicans overall--nearly the 112-vote majority needed to win the vote among the 223 Republicans who will serve in the next Congress.

But Cox, after spending the day Saturday calling his colleagues, said there were more than 100 uncommitted members and that he was “very encouraged” by the result.

“We have found a highly fluid situation,” Cox said. “It’s anyone’s game.”

Other Republicans, such as Rep. James M. Talent (R-Mo.), still may join the fray, but they would be considered longshots. And whoever wins, one thing seems clear: The next speaker is not going to be a hard-charging, self-styled revolutionary in the Gingrich mode.

Livingston and Cox, for instance, already have indicated they would steer the speakership away from being a pulpit for high-volume national political leadership and instead would concentrate on low-key congressional management.

That, in turn, would clear the stage for the party’s presidential candidates to take the lead in defining the GOP over the next two years.

“It behooves us to lower the profile [of the speaker’s job] but work in the trenches toward the presidential election,” said Rep. David M. McIntosh (R-Ind.).

Selection of a new speaker is not expected to have a big effect on the impeachment proceedings arising from President Clinton’s relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky. Neither Cox nor Livingston has been outspoken about the matter, deferring to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.).

“Chairman Hyde and the Judiciary Committee have that process within their jurisdiction, and I, like all other members, await their decisions,” Livingston said when he announced his campaign for speaker on Friday.

The congressional election results have led many Republicans to conclude that they should wrap up the committee’s impeachment inquiry as quickly as possible, which Hyde has said he intends to do. If anything, the leadership turmoil has intensified that view.

Gingrich to Settle ‘Details and Legalities’

The power struggle within the GOP ranks was set off Friday when Gingrich, faced with a rebellion as a result of the party’s poor showing in Tuesday’s midterm elections, abruptly announced he would not seek reelection as speaker for the coming Congress.

Speaking briefly to reporters gathered outside his home in Marietta, Ga., on Saturday, he made explicit what had been unclear initially: He also plans to resign his seat in the House once he has settled the “details and legalities.” A special election early next year in the district will pick his successor.

“As a practical matter, for me to stay in the House would make it impossible for a new leader to have a chance to grow,” Gingrich said.

Without giving a detailed explanation for his decision to yield the speakership, Gingrich repeated a line he used in a private conference call with his House GOP colleagues Friday night: “I could hardly stand by and allow the party to cannibalize itself. The Republican Party has to pull together as a team.”

Gingrich plans to deliver a speech Monday night in Washington to GOPAC, a Republican fund-raising group he once headed, and he indicated he would have more to say about his decision then.

Ambitious Republicans did not long mourn the loss of the leader who orchestrated their surprise takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections and has been a lightning rod for Democratic antipathy ever since.

Instead, phone lines on Saturday hummed with calls to lawmakers from Livingston, Cox and others who will seek election to lesser leadership posts when Republican House members meet in Washington on Nov. 18 to organize for the new Congress.

Leaders picked at that meeting would also have to be approved by the full House when it officially convenes in January, but that vote typically falls strictly along party lines.

Livingston, 55, had been quietly campaigning for the speakership for months--not in an effort to overthrow Gingrich but with an eye to 2000, when it had been anticipated the Georgian would step down. Tuesday’s election debacle for the GOP sped up Livingston’s timeline, causing him to announce Friday afternoon that he would challenge Gingrich.

Livingston’s early efforts to gather support are serving him well in the wake of Gingrich’s announcement.

The Louisianian’s candidacy got a further boost Saturday when he won the endorsement of House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas). DeLay’s work in the No. 3 leadership post has been widely praised within GOP House circles, and so far he is not facing a challenge.

Cox, 46, is one of the rising stars among younger Republicans and already serves as chairman of the House GOP policy committee.

His speakership bid is getting key support from some conservatives who argue that Livingston, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has presided over spending increases and pork-barrel politics of the sort that Republicans came to power to fight. Among them is McIntosh, leader of a conservative faction of about 40 in the House.

McIntosh had favored Archer as Gingrich’s replacement. But after Archer announced he would not seek the post, McIntosh quickly endorsed Cox.

“Chris will be a strong leader for a Reagan agenda of holding the line on spending, cutting taxes and strong defense,” McIntosh said. “Bob is seen as someone coming out of the pork caucus. Bob would lead us back into the minority.”

Little Ideological Difference Between 2

But even some members of McIntosh’s caucus are supporting Livingston. As an ideological matter, there is relatively little difference between the two contenders. And leadership elections in the House are often driven as much, if not more, by questions of personality and personal loyalty.

One other factor that may work in Cox’s favor is a push among some Republicans for greater geographic diversity among their leaders. With Gingrich, DeLay and House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas (who faces a challenge from Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma), the top three posts have been held by Southerners.

“This is an opportunity for the House Republicans,” said John F. Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont-McKenna College. “They need to expand their majority. That means winning more seats beyond their Southern base.”

Cox, in his quest to be the first Californian to be speaker, won a swift endorsement Saturday from one of his Orange County colleagues, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach). At a press briefing on the Huntington Beach pier, Rohrabacher touted Cox as “principled without being disagreeable.”

Spotlighting the change in style many House Republicans are seeking, Rohrabacher said Gingrich “liked to fight a little too much. He was a little too abrasive. Because [Cox] is so soft-spoken, it’s going to be hard for Democrats to demonize him.”

Still, the duel for the speakership leaves many of California’s 24 Republican House members in an awkward position. While geographic loyalty creates a strong incentive to support Cox, Livingston’s status as the front-runner makes it risky to openly spurn him.

The dilemma is particularly acute for Californians on the Appropriations Committee, such as Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), who has worked closely with Livingston. Another committee member, Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside), is an outspoken Livingston ally.

Livingston and Cox would bring different styles and strengths to the speakership. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Livingston has been the insider’s insider, skilled at cutting deals and building legislative coalitions. Cox is thought by many to be an effective television presence.

“Bob Livingston is a legislative mechanic, so he is the candidate that excels at inside baseball,” said Pitney. “Chris Cox would excel as a communicator.”

But as they seek support, both Livingston and Cox are pledging to run the House more efficiently than Gingrich has, with an emphasis on moving major legislation in a more organized manner.

It’s dry stuff to outsiders but an appealing message to the many lawmakers who were infuriated this year by a GOP strategy that left most budget decisions until the very end of the session, when the pressure to adjourn gave President Clinton the upper hand in negotiations.

Times staff writer Deborah Schoch in Orange County contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Gingrich Conference Call

Excerpts from a conference call Friday night between House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Republican members of Congress:

Gingrich: “I think for the future of the party, it makes a lot more sense for me not to be a candidate for speaker. We have to get the bitterness out. . . . It is clear that as long as I’m around that won’t happen. I have always put the party ahead of my own ambitions.”

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas): “I’m in your camp. I would hope you would at least consider staying in Congress . . . and not totally getting out. We’re going to need you and your vision. I’m just really saddened by this.”

Gingrich: “I’m willing to lead, but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.”

Barton: “We could end up losing that seat [Gingrich’s 6th Congressional District seat].”

Gingrich: “Trust me, that district will elect a Republican. I may need your help on a job resume. . . . I’ll stay through the end of the year. The new team has to have the opportunity to be a new team. I think [wife] Marianne and I will probably take six months off and go collect dinosaurs or something.”

Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I understand your interest in not being in Congress and I respect that.” (Portman then asked for advice on a replacement.)

Gingrich: “You need to have a conference before you vote. You need to talk through how hard it’s going to be to have a six-vote margin. You need to absolutely insist that every person there is going to . . . pledge that they support everybody, or don’t let them vote. Five or 10 people could blackmail everybody else. I spent 40 years of my life getting us here. The idea that I would be the excuse to cannibalize the majority is so sickening I couldn’t risk it. You have many good candidates. Have the loyalty of the entire 223 or it will not work.”

Portman: “We’ll need you.”

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): “This is sort of a very sad time here. I have never been in a meeting where I haven’t felt inspired by what you have to say. We are a caucus that is so complicated. You did make people understand what was going on. . . . Whoever takes your place will have to have your ability to lead us out of our forest.”

Gingrich: “The prospect of an Al Gore presidency and a Democratic Congress ought to scare all of us into mobilization. The level of love and affection that Marianne and I have for many of you--I am grateful to each and every one of you. I have a lot of reasons to be grateful. I’ll be at the organizing conference. I love all of you.”

Source: Associated Press