Politics Is a Game Of Many Ups and Downs
January 1, 2003
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
In previous columns I have commented on various phases and multiple ends of the 2002 congressional elections. But even after the Dec. 7 run-off election in Louisiana might have appeared to be the end of that political process, we have new developments.
First, let’s deal with the vote in the Pelican State.
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu narrowly won the run-off election against Republican challenger Suzanne Terrell, who had been supported by President Bush and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Such a victory might provide an occasion for crowing by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly known as Handgun Control Inc.). Landrieu’s record could not be construed to be pro-gun.
But a funny thing happened in many election campaigns this year, with several Democrats who possessed spotty to stinky records on the gun issue, suddenly trying to sound pro-hunting and recreational shooting, if not absolutely pro-gun. And a funny thing happened in the Louisiana Senate campaign, according to the NRA, which is one of the reasons the Brady Bunch isn’t singing about Landrieu’s win.
When the Brady Campaign sent Landrieu a campaign contribution for $1,000, the senator rejected it and donated the money to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Foundation, which will use it to encourage more Louisianans to hunt, fish and enjoy the “Sportmen’s Paradise.”
But that wasn’t the only rebuff to the Bradys. Landrieu has expressed her commitment to stand with NRA members and other law-abiding gunowners and sportsmen in Louisiana on important Second Amendment issues, which includes, according to NRA, allowing the “assault weapon” ban to sunset.
Senate Control
Democrat Landrieu’s victory shouldn’t have had any affect on the newly regained Republican majority control of the Senate, but then again, maybe it will. With Landrieu’s victory, the Democrats are back within one seat of control again.
How could that happen? Consider this:
Current Majority Leader Trent Lott’s (R-MS) sudden attack of political foot-in-mouth disease (see story on Page 1 of this issue) has raised the possibility of a Republican caucus vote to replace him in the leadership slot. Should that happen, there is the possibility that Lott might decide to leave the Senate altogether. And should that happen, the Democratic governor of Mississippi would be given an opportunity to appoint a Democrat to fill the GOP vacancy.
And that means the Senate could be evenly split again, and again requires the vote of Vice President Dick Cheney to give them nominal control. Such a switch leading up to the 2004 presidential campaign could prove disastrous. It would make it more difficult for the White House to move its agenda, and make it more Democratic possible for senators such as Charles Schumer (NY), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Herb Kohl (WI), and the Californians—Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein—to push their anti-gun agenda.
Gore Bows Out
But speaking of the 2004 presidential campaign, recent news has changed the dynamic for that event, at least as far as the Democrats are concerned.
Al Gore left the field of potential 2004 Democratic presidential candidates in a surprise move that immediately raised the stakes for a half-dozen others who have been pondering a run for the White House.
Gore made his announcement on Dec. 15 on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” taking the nation and party faithful by surprise. Some close aides had expected him to start making calls to political and financial advisers to test the waters and then make a decision over the Christmas holidays.
While saying he still had the energy and drive to run again, Gore, 54, noted “there are a lot of people within the Democratic Party who felt exhausted (by the 2000 race) . . . who felt like, OK, ‘I don’t want to go through that again.’ And I’m frankly sensitive to that feeling.”
His 2000 running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who previously had said that he was likely to be a candidate for president only if Gore did not run, said on Dec. 16 that he’ll announce early in January whether he plans to run.
President Bush’s spokesman called the developments an internal Democratic Party matter, but couldn’t resist taking a poke. “Someone will emerge from the Democratic pack who seeks to raise taxes on the American people,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.
Many Democrats said they were surprised by the timing of the decision, which came after Gore spent several days in New York discussing his plans with family members.
Potential rivals—like Roman senators after the assassination of Julius Caesar—moved quickly to praise Gore, who still has a considerable following among Democratic voters.
In his statement, Lieberman said he would have been “proud to support him (Gore) had he chosen to run for president again.”
Gore won the presidential popular vote by a half-million votes in 2000 but conceded to Republican George Bush after a tumultuous 36-day recount in Florida and a 5-4 Supreme Court vote against him.
Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards promptly praised Gore as an important force in the party who was certain to contribute more in future years. All are possible Democratic standard-bearers next time around.
After seeking the presidency or vice presidency every four years since 1988, Gore said Sunday he’ll probably not have another chance to run for the White House.
Ron Klain, who was Gore’s vice presidential chief of staff, said he thinks the party now will have “a much more competitive primary” and said he believes Gore would have been the front-runner had he decided to run again.
“I think you’re going to see one of the closest and most competitive fields you’ve seen a long time in the Democratic Party,” Klain said on NBC’s “Today” show on Dec. 16. “He could have waited a lot longer to make this decision. But he did something I thought was very, very classy . . . and this lets all these candidates get it together and get out there.”
Party activists were critical of Gore for losing despite a booming economy and eight years of a Democratic administration. Gore even lost his home state of Tennessee; a victory there would have given him the White House.
Gore disappeared from public view after the 2000 election. A year ago, Gore accepted the job of vice chairman of Metropolitan West Financial, a Los Angeles-based financial services company. He has been juggling that job with his duties as college professor, speaker and author.
Despite the praise after the announcement, not all Democratic activists spoke kindly of Gore over the last year. Many, both nationally and in key early primary and caucus states, said they were anxious for a fresh face.
And in coming weeks, that’s what they’re likely to get.
Gephardt, who also ran in 1988, is “very, very likely” to run, with the decision by Gore having no effect, associates say.
Daschle is actively considering a presidential run, but has set no deadline for a decision.
Kerry has taken initial steps to form an exploratory committee, a preliminary to a formal candidacy.
Edwards is expected to announce his decision on candidacy after the Christmas holidays, and associates expect him to run.
Dean is already a declared candidate and has spent much time in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
And Gore’s absence could lure additional Democrats into the race.
Political operatives like to use the word “bombshell” a lot. Most of that is just spin when any routine political announcement is made. But bombshells or mere grenades, whenever events such as those in the middle of December take place, the whole political ballgame is scrambled all over again.
Return to Archive Index
