Gephardt: Is he placing his party's best interest ahead of the
USA's?

By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted July 29, 2002

I do not wish to be partisan. I have often said that there is
enough blame for our nation's troubles to be passed around to
both political parties. I am not one who thinks life would just
ducky if we only elected lots more Republicans to the Congress.

After all, we had two back-to-back Congresses in which
Republicans controlled the Senate by a 55 to 45 margin. Still,
positive measures passed in the House just couldn't see the light
of day in the Senate because any measure needed 60 votes to
pass and some how the Senate leadership couldn't keep their 55
votes together let alone find the extra Democrats needed for
passage.

I was disappointed when I read the article in Roll Call
newspaper that said, "House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt
has told senior Democrats that the party could pick up as many
as 40 House seats if the continuously unfolding corporate
scandals can be kept on the political radar screen until
November." Another Democratic political operative said that for
every 100 points the stock market drops, the Democrats can
pick up four seats.

Speaker of the House Denny Hastert said: "I read in the
newspaper that Mr. Gephardt seeks political gain from the
current troubles that have hit the stock market....I find it
unconscionable that someone would play politics with an issue as
important as the American economy. Every American family has
a vested interest in the stock market, whether it is with securities
with 401 (k)s, or with pensions. Hoping -for-political reasons
that the stock market continues to slide or that scandals continue
to hit major American [corporations] is simply wrong. People's
livelihoods are at stake here."

Denny Hastert is one of the least partisan Speakers since the late
Speaker Martin who presided from 1947 to 1949 and again
from 1953 to 1955, the only two Congresses in modern times
which the Republicans controlled until 1995 Hastert, in my
opinion would not have made a similar statement if the situation
were in reverse. Would Newt Gingrich, who held the
Speakership for the two previous Congresses before Hastert
was elected, have said something akin to what Gephardt said?
Yes, I believe he would have. On election day in 1998, Gingrich
was telling the media he thought House Republicans would pick
up 30 to 40 seats. Instead, Republicans lost five seats. Bill
Clinton had reversed history. No Administration in the sixth year
of an eight- year stint had ever gained seats. Even FDR lost big
in 1938.

Hastert seldom issues partisan attacks against the Democrats.
He prides himself, along with his team of Tom DeLay and Roy
Blunt, in being able to put together bi-partisan victories for even
controversial issues. In many cases Hastert could count more
than 100 Democrats voting with virtually all the Republicans.

So when he does speak out, he deserves to be taken seriously. I
understand that Gephardt has lusted after the Speakership for
many years now. But what he is reported to have said is just
plain irresponsible. The American people expect both parties to
sit down and work together on measures which will shore up the
economy and return confidence in the stock market.

If Gephardt can't restrain himself and wants to destroy any
attempts to work together in return for placing economic issues
on the front page or as the lead story on the evening news so he
and his colleagues can blame the Republicans, then he does not
deserve to be Speaker. Dick Gephardt has always been a sober,
realistic minority leader who often has put politics aside to help
his country. Apparently the lure of winning is too much for him to
handle. The American voters might want to keep that in mind
when they look at the 2002 elections.

Paul M. Weyrich is president of the Free Congress Foundation
(http://www.freecongress.org)

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com