TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/102290/1022106.000

Text File | 1992-09-27 | 11KB | 243 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 29

Housecleaning Time?


Widespread revulsion over the budget debacle has incumbents
running scared -- and blurring their ties to Washington

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT/WASHINGTON -- With reporting by Robert
Ajemian/Boston and Gavin Scott/Chicago


    There was a time when Congressmen and Senators boasted that
their experience in Washington was a reason to send them back
for another term. That was before public disgust with
congressional pay hikes, the savings-and-loan debacle and the
government's inability to devise an acceptable
deficit-reduction plan erupted into a throw-the-bums-out mood
so intense that many lawmakers are afraid to face their
constituents. As a result, incumbents from both parties are
finding that the very tenure in office that used to be a
political asset can now be a liability. They are scrambling to
recast themselves as populist crusaders whose main reason for
being in the nation's capital is to fight against its wicked
ways. Says Larry Harrington, a Democratic Senate campaign
strategist: "Everybody is playing the outsider. That's this
year's shtick."

    The widespread revulsion with Congress has lent spice to an
otherwise boring midterm campaign. Public-opinion polls confirm
that a cynical electorate has not been paying close attention
to the race. But the anti-Washington mood has made some
contests closer than expected -- and added some distracting
mud.

    Take New Hampshire, where Democrat John Durkin, a former
U.S. Senator, and Republican Robert Smith, a three-term
Congressman, are battling for a Senate seat. A Durkin TV
commercial indicts Smith as the only candidate who has "spent
the last six years in Washington." Durkin also accuses Smith
of taking money from political-action committees and pandering
to "Big Oil." Not to be outdone, Smith has reminded voters that
Durkin has Washington ties of his own. During his Senate term,
Smith charges, Durkin voted against tax cuts. He still, says
Smith, accepts donations from the national Democratic Party,
which takes PAC contributions. "He's the worst kind of
hypocrite," Smith fumes. Though the state is conservative, the
contest has become competitive.

    For incumbents nothing is so damaging as being linked with
the S&L scandal. Republican campaign tacticians in particular
reasoned that some House Democrats would be vulnerable because
of their ties to the scandal-plagued industry. One plump
target: Chicago's Frank Annunzio, who had two relatives on the
payroll of an S&L lobbying group, took campaign donations from
S&L PACs and promoted legislation sought by the industry. His
Republican opponent, state senator Walter Dudycz, seemed
capable of making a strong challenge. Then Dudycz ran into an
ethics problem: the accusation that he had double dipped by
taking pay from both the legislature and the sheriff's
department for the same workdays. He denied any impropriety.

    Republicans too are endangered by their connections with the
scandal. One example is Congressman Charles Pashayan of
California. A six-term veteran who appeared safe, Pashayan is
now struggling to survive a challenge from Democrat Cal Dooley
because the Congressman accepted $26,000 from Charles Keating's
Lincoln Savings & Loan four years ago. In Oregon, Republican
Denny Smith is also vulnerable. He was a director of a failed
S&L, and Democrats charge that he tried to influence federal
regulators. His opponent, Mike Kopetski, a former state
legislator, had a 10-point lead last week. Ironically, Smith
won his seat in 1980 by defeating Al Ullman, then chairman of
the Ways and Means Committee, because Oregonians thought Ullman
was too much of a Washington insider.

    The anti-incumbent mood largely accounts for the defeat of
the deficit-reduction package endorsed by the White House and
congressional leaders. Most lawmakers who feel remotely
threatened -- as well as every House member attempting to
graduate to the Senate -- came out against it. Braver souls who
supported the unpopular combination of tax hikes and service
cuts are now being savaged for their stand. In Vermont,
Republican Peter Smith, a freshman Congressman, is running no
better than even against a well-known independent, Bernard
Sanders. A former Socialist mayor of Burlington, Sanders has
railed for years against establishments of all kinds. This
fall, his populist appeal seems in sync with the times.

    To protect themselves, some lawmakers have tried to blur
their incumbent status. In Illinois, for instance, Democratic
Senator Paul Simon is airing a TV commercial that shows his
opponent, Congresswoman Lynn Martin, next to a copy of the
Congressional Record while an announcer reels off her votes.
Simon is described as "fighting" for this or that cause, rather
than "voting" on anything. The spot leaves doubt as to just who
has been in the Senate for the past six years. The motif of
fighting for the home folks against Washington shows up in many
ads in other states.

    A favorite gambit of challengers is to call for new blood.
In Oregon, for example, Democratic businessman Harry Lonsdale
is trying to topple Senator Mark Hatfield by arguing that "most
of our elected officials have been in Washington too long."
This tactic dovetails with the widening effort to limit the
service of lawmakers at both the state and federal level. Last
month Oklahoma voters approved a measure that will restrict
state legislators to a maximum of 12 years in office.
Californians will have their choice of ballot initiatives next
month to do the same thing; public-opinion polls show
overwhelming approval. In Colorado a proposed amendment to the
state constitution would go even further: it would limit state
legislators to eight consecutive years in office and members
of Congress to 12. The Colorado proposal raises the question
of whether states have the constitutional right to restrict
congressional tenure; the answer is probably no. But the
movement is picking up so much momentum that Congress may be
forced to consider the issue.

    If it does, the incumbency factor could become a major issue
in future elections. Republicans, including George Bush,
believe that limiting the number of terms a Congressman can
serve would boost their efforts to break the other party's
stranglehold on the House by forcing popular Democrats to quit
long before the voters would force them to retire. But any
broad effort to restrict the tenure of lawmakers could have an
unintended negative effect: it might deflect public attention
 -- and rage -- away from what the people's representatives are
actually doing in Congress to a debate over whether they should
be thrown out on a set schedule regardless of their
performance.

    Despite its intensity, the antipathy toward Congress will
have negligible impact on the midterm elections three weeks
from now. Odd as it may seem, most voters exempt their own
representatives from the contempt they hold for Congress in
general. The local officeholder who does favors for
constituents, attends parades and sends newsletters to the home
folks often comes across as a benign exception to the general
image. Of the 406 members of the House seeking re-election
this November, only about 30 face serious opposition. The rest
either are running unopposed or enjoy such a huge financial
advantage that they might as well be. Thus no one in either
party expects an explosion that could result in the wholesale
slaughter of incumbents. "The gunpowder is on the floor," says
R. Marc Nuttle, executive director of the Republican
Congressional Campaign Committee, "but so far no one has struck
the match." It is only a matter of time before someone does --
in, say, 1992.


____________________________________________________________
HOUSECLEANING TIME?


    OREGON: Hatfield vs. Lonsdale

    Undefeated during a 40-year career in politics, Republican
Senator Mark Hatfield seemed invulnerable. He did not even
campaign in the state in September. But last week Hatfield
hustled home after polls showed that his obscure Democratic
challenger, businessman Harry Lonsdale, was gaining ground.
According to an Oregonian poll, Hatfield's lead, which stood
at 36 points in late August, had shrunk to 6 points by early
October. The progressive Lonsdale has damaged Hatfield by
accusing him of voting to deregulate the S&L industry. He has
also scored points by harping on Hatfield's support of logging
in ancient forests.


    RHODE ISLAND: Pell vs. Schneider

    George Bush thought Congresswoman Claudine Schneider stood
such a good chance of winning that he personally urged her to
surrender her safe House seat to run against Democrat Claiborne
Pell. After 30 years in office, Pell, 71, a diffident blue
blood with an antique style, seemed ripe for a plucking. But
his clean image and use of office perks to provide services to
constituents have kept him ahead by at least 10 points. So far
Schneider, a five-term House veteran, has avoided negative
campaigning for fear that assaulting a venerable institution
might backfire. Her time for presenting a compelling reason to
replace him may be running out.


    ILLINOIS: Simon vs. Martin

    When quick-witted Republican Congresswoman Lynn Martin began
her race to unseat first-term Senator Paul Simon, G.O.P.
leaders anticipated a likely win. The bow-tied incumbent,
plagued by memories of an ill-conceived run for the presidency
in 1988, seemed vulnerable to Martin's attacks on his liberal
voting record and prissy image. Last week her media adviser,
Roger Ailes, denounced Simon as a "weenie." Yet Simon is
leading Martin in the polls, 51% to 28%. In addition to blunting
Martin's attacks on him as a Senate insider, Simon, a
supporter of abortion rights, has won the endorsement of the
state chapter of the National Organization for Women.


    IOWA: Harkin vs. Tauke

    By shrewdly casting themselves as outsiders, two Washington
veterans have produced one of the closest races in the country.
Neither Democratic Senator Tom Harkin nor his challenger,
six-term G.O.P. Congressman Tom Tauke, accepts the pay hike
Congress voted for itself for this year. Both opposed the
deficit-reduction plan that was defeated in Washington two
weeks ago. But while Harkin has stressed his support for
generous farm subsidies, Tauke accuses him of being a tax-happy
big spender. The latest Des Moines Register poll shows Harkin
leading, 44% to 41%. History is on Tauke's side: no Democratic
Senator from Iowa has ever been elected to a second term.