"One of the most popular and respected Republican figures in the country..."

With apologies to the authoress, who has since reinvented herself as a genuine populist and progressive hero, here's another sounding of the precise store of wisdom contained within Washington conventional wisdom, this one from 1996, on the same subject as the previous post...

******

Cheney To The Rescue [1]

December 31, 1996
By Arianna Huffington

"We have seen no erosion whatsoever," House Majority Whip Tom DeLay said on "Meet the Press" Sunday, echoing Majority Leader Dick Armey, who has been predicting with "no doubt" that all 227 Republican members will vote for the speaker.

And then, Rep. Michael Forbes from Long Island announced that he would not be voting for Gingrich.

Now that's erosion. The difference between no defections and one defection is not simply numerical. It is the difference between a whole fabric and one with a tear in it. Which is why on Monday morning the leadership hastily arranged an emergency conference call in which about 100 members participated. "It was a one-way conference call," one member told me. "We mostly listened to Dick Armey and John Boehner giving us all the reasons why we had to close ranks behind Newt."

Another member on the call told me that he found "Chris Shays' argument the most persuasive. He took us through a point-by-point comparison of the charges against Dick Gephardt and how much more heinous they were than those against Newt. And yet there was no question whether Gephardt's colleagues would re-elect him as minority leader."

The leadership, desperately trying to prevent a domino effect, had even stooped to comparisons about which of the two was more ethically challenged. After all, it would take only 19 more Republican members not casting a vote for the speaker on Jan. 7 for Gingrich to be consigned to the back benches. So far, at least six others have said publicly that they have not yet made a decision.

If Gingrich decides to make the tough decision to step down, it is imperative that he does it sooner rather than later, leaving enough hours before the vote to organize an orderly succession. It will be difficult enough to reach a consensus before the time of the vote. The longer Gingrich delays reaching his conclusion, the harder it will be.

The obvious successor, Armey, would definitely be opposed. John Boehner, Republican conference chairman, might marshal his forces against Armey, and John Kasich has already made it clear in private that if Armey runs, he will challenge him. Kasich, the most exciting prospect among the current congressional leadership, probably would lose a battle against Armey since he has not cultivated his power base in the House the way Armey has.

The discussion of a possible caretaker speaker has focused on Rep. Henry Hyde, a respected elder statesman who nevertheless seems to many an uninspired choice.

But Gingrich could make a dramatic and unprecedented move -- and in the process underline the caretaker nature of the choice -- by reaching out to an old colleague, asking him to step in and guide the party through this difficult moment.

Dick Cheney is no longer in the House, but nowhere does the Constitution specify that the speaker must be a sitting member. Of course, it is a great plus that Cheney served in the House of Representatives from 1979 to 1989 and was from the beginning a leader of his class -- a class that included Gingrich. When Cheney was asked by President Bush to join his Cabinet as defense secretary in 1989, he had succeeded Trent Lott as minority whip. And he was in turn succeeded in the post by Gingrich. One of the most popular and respected Republican figures in the country, especially since his role in the Gulf War, Cheney now lives in Dallas, running the Halliburton Co., an energy and construction corporation.

The moral force that Gingrich would garner, not only from stepping aside but from providing the leadership that would avoid a bloody battle for the succession, is immeasurable. Unfair though it may be, to ordinary citizens around America, charges against politicians are all the same. As a barman in Phoenix put it the other day, "Gingrich got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and should be punished." If Gingrich doesn't act, the prevalent sense will be that "those guys in Washington are getting away with it again."

If he does, Gingrich will be instantly transformed from a discredited politician to a principled leader. And ironically, his own long-term interests will be much better served with a year or two in the shadows. He could emerge renewed and strengthened -- perhaps ready to lead again.

Without an ethical albatross around their neck, Republicans could turn to the White House and say, with moral authority this time: "Now, fellows, it's your turn."

But if Gingrich refuses to see the writing on the wall, Jan. 7 could go down as a day of ignominy for the Republican Party. "If I were a Democrat for 48 hours," a senior Republican strategist told me, "I would have a field day organizing their troops for Jan. 7. I would have them scattered all over the House shaking their fists at Gingrich, shouting, 'Shame! Shame!' and creating such chaos that the proceedings would have to be interrupted."

Only Gingrich can prevent this or similar damaging scenarios for his party. Sometimes the highest form of leadership involves retreat.