more on Republican tactics
May 26, 1997
THE GAMES BEGIN
by David Grann and Sarah Pekkanen
On The Hill
Since the 105th Congress began, six Republicans and six Democrats have been coming
together weekly in the Capitol for a good cause: to salvage a congressional ethics process
shattered by the Newt Gingrich saga. Led by Congressman Bob Livingston, the bipartisan task
force is trying to devise ways to dissuade lawmakers from what has become, it increasingly
seems, the principal occupation of a perpetually self-bloodying House, the lobbing of ethics
charges. In an effort to keep the peace, the do-gooding twelve have imposed what Livingston
calls "an ethics disarmament," a moratorium on new complaints--a moratorium that ran out on
May 7.
Meanwhile, in another Capitol Hill office a different band of lawmakers, this one entirely
Republican, has for weeks been busy with a rather different approach to the ethics truce:
preparing for all-out war the moment the ethics ban lifts. Expecting Democrats to renew their
attacks on Gingrich and other Republicans, the GOP partisans are plotting to deluge their
colleagues across the aisle with ethics charges. "If they're going to open up a whole war,"
warned Indiana Republican Mark Souder, "they need to understand that both sides have
guns."
Right now, the Republicans are aiming primarily at Jim McDermott, the former ranking
member on the Ethics Committee, whom the Republicans quite credibly accuse of passing to
the press an illegal audio recording of GOP leaders, on December 21, discussing Gingrich's
ethics punishment. The tape recording was made by Florida Democratic activists John and
Alice Martin, who have said they provided the tape to McDermott. With the advice of former
prosecutor Bob Barr of Georgia, Republican House Conference Chairman John Boehner of
Ohio is drafting a stack of ethics complaints against the Washington state Democrat,
contending that he improperly withheld the tape recording from the panel and violated the
rules he was supposed to enforce. The Republicans are confident they can nail McDermott on
these accusations, and are longing for revenge. "A lot of people," observed Illinois Republican
Ray LaHood of McDermott, "would like to get their pound of flesh against him."
Some of the Republicans whose recorded cellular phone conversation wound up on the front
page of The New York Times are even contemplating suing McDermott, in what would be
one of the few civil lawsuits ever filed between lawmakers. The suits, Republicans hope,
could dwarf the $300,000 penalty levied against the speaker.
But these prospective salvos represent only a backup plan. The primary line of attack runs
through the Justice Department. Since March, Boehner has sent a series of letters pressing
Attorney General Janet Reno to prosecute, fine and potentially imprison McDermott for
breaking federal anti-wiretapping statutes. In reality, legal experts say, McDermott faces, at
worst, a fine and a suspended sentence. Still, some form of criminal action against McDermott
is likely. According to one knowledgeable source, a grand jury was recently seated to consider
whether to indict the onetime psychiatrist. Asked if he has been called to testify, McDermott,
who has been uncharacteristically silent lately, said simply, "No comment." Unfortunately for
McDermott, others are talking, specifically the Martins, who on April 23 agreed to plead guilty
to violating the Communications Privacy Act and are cooperating with prosecutors.
The House Democrats haven't exactly renounced their sanguinary ways, either. They may
refile complaints left over from the last Congress charging Gingrich with siphoning money
from gopac, Majority Whip Tom DeLay with linking legislation to lobbyists' money, and
Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster with, among other things, violating the gift
ban. And, if things escalate, some Democrats say they'll push cases against Government
Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton of Indiana for allegedly shaking
down a lobbyist, and against his deputy, David McIntosh of Indiana, for "selling" legislation to
contributors. Democrats figure Gingrich's already sullied reputation puts the GOP at a tactical
disadvantage. "If they want it to be open season, they have a high level of exposure," said one
Democratic strategist. "We're certainly going to match them."
Things promise to escalate nicely. After rumors spread that Democrats planned to file
complaints against every GOP leader who was taped seemingly conspiring with
Gingrich--including Boehner, Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas and Bill Paxon of New
York--Republicans unleashed their opposition researchers against every top Democrat. "We'll
go after [Richard] Gephardt because he is the head of the party and allowing them to run
wild," warned a GOP leadership aide. "He will not escape the collateral damage of filing
complaints against top Republicans. We've been digging through the last ten years of activities
of Gephardt, [Minority Whip David] Bonior, McDermott and [Caucus Chairman Vic] Fazio.
If they're going to play war games, we'll give them equally back."
It is the way of the Hill these days. Neither party even pretends much anymore that the ethics
process is about anything other than political warfare, and each battle gives cause for the next.
"It's like the old tribal tradition: if one of your guys is killed, then you have to kill another in
order to let his soul go to heaven," explained Representative Brian Bilbray, a Republican from
California. "It would be more civilized to have the Ethics Committee just issue pistols and
have them walk ten paces and turn and fire. God knows it would be a whole lot neater."
Faster, too.
One man, more than any other, created this warrior culture: Newt Gingrich. He shattered the
old rules of comity by driving Jim Wright from the speaker's seat in 1989. Now it is Gingrich
who most fervently wishes for a return to peace. Those close to the speaker say his desire for
political redemption outweighs his desire for revenge, but that his lieutenants insist on
"Newting" their Democratic foes. Some in the minority even contend that the campaign
against McDermott is really a clever bank-shot ploy by House conservatives who have
become disgruntled with Gingrich to help push him out of leadership. The somewhat rococo
idea is that the effort to "Newt" McDermott is really a bid to "Newt" Newt: the Republican
ethics complaints against McDermott will inspire the Democrats to file payback complaints
against Gingrich, which, this time, will bring him down. There are plenty of Democrats who
would be happy to play along. "If they go after McDermott, it only makes it easier for us to
bring up Newt," says one Democratic aide. "On second thought, screw McDermott."
Meanwhile, in their solitude, Livingston and his Democratic cochairman, Benjamin Cardin of
Maryland, are working frenetically to stave off at least the most frivolous complaints. But
even the bipartisan task force may be faltering under its own partisan divisions. The May 7
date for the moratorium on new complaints was the second deadline. The first, in April, was
extended when the committee failed to agree on an overall peace plan. Cardin recently gave
the panel only a "60 to 65 percent chance" of successfully depoliticizing the process.
In the end, the only thing that may stop the bloodletting is not forcibly depoliticizing the
process, but completely politicizing it. With each party indiscriminately inflating its charges,
the cost of an actual clash has risen so high as to give even the purest partisan a moment's
pause. "There's a fair chance when people see the pattern of mutual assured destruction, they
won't pull the trigger," said Souder. "But that doesn't mean they haven't laid out their battle
plans and loaded their guns. And that's how world wars get started."
Sarah Pekkanen is a reporter for Gannett News Service.
(Copyright 1997, The New Republic)
Table of
Contents:
The New
Republic
05-26-97
About
The New
Republic
Subscribe
to The New
Republic
Search
the Archives
Talk
to The New Republic
|
