Reprinted from The Washington Times, March 2, 1998
Livingston to challenge
Armey for House speaker
By Nancy E. Roman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Rep. Robert L. Livingston, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, proclaimed himself a "big-tent Republican" who is the best candidate to succeed House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
"I'm not Newt Gingrich," the Louisiana Republican told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "He's an incredibly bright, farsighted, visionary kind of guy who saw the possibility that we could be in the majority and delivered us. But I'm a good manager."
With Mr. Gingrich giving signs that he may step down to run for president in 2000, Mr. Livingston's ambition represents a challenge to Majority Leader Dick Armey, the Texas Republican who is the heir apparent to Mr. Gingrich.
Though critical of Mr. Armey's legislative strategy, Mr. Livingston said his potential rivalry with the Texas Republican is not personal but stems from "professional differences."
While reluctant to criticize Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Livingston did say his political judgment is sometimes better than the Republican leader from Georgia.
"In all modesty, I'm one of the better chairmen," he said. "I'm a conservative ... and my judgment has turned out to be as good -- if not better -- than anyone in leadership."
In citing his qualifications for the speakership, Mr. Livingston said he:
- Wants a meatier agenda.
- Is a better political communicator than "most members of leadership" other than Mr. Gingrich.
- Did not participate in the effort to topple Mr. Gingrich.
- Thought Mr. Armey's approach to the disaster-relief bill was wrongheaded.
- Is someone who can build consensus.
"I got my bills passed despite certain individuals doing everything they could to stop them," he said. "Generally [Mr. Armey] was on the other side."
That very fact is one of the things that could hurt Mr. Livingston in a race to succeed Mr. Gingrich.
During his tenure as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Livingston has often locked horns with conservatives in the party who argued principle over pragmatism -- or, as he said, "wanted to take their marbles and go home" when they couldn't get their way.
Mr. Livingston said his political philosophy is that compromise is critical to ultimate success and to retaining a majority.
"I'm a pro-life, fiscally and socially conservative Republican who believes that those goals will only be served if we work with our moderates," he said.
Rep. Bill Paxon's announcement that he will leave Congress this year turned the spotlight toward Mr. Livingston. Mr. Armey now has no obvious challenger for majority leader and thus becomes -- for now -- the presumed heir to the speakership. Mr. Livingston's vow to run for speaker pits the two against each other.
Mr. Livingston said he expects to pick up the support of most of those who were backing Mr. Paxon. He insisted his run for leader is not personal.
"This is a professional difference of approach," Mr. Livingston said. "Dick Armey and I are friends. ... We have gone fishing together. I intend to seek the speakership. This is not a personal matter."
But it could get personal if Mr. Gingrich steps down next year.
He said that when Mr. Gingrich called him last month to urge him to stay on as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he told him he would run for speaker.
"At the end of the conversation I said, 'OK, I'm going to run. But if you vacate the office, I'm going to run for speaker.'"
Mr. Livingston said Mr. Gingrich was noncommittal.
"He kind of cleared his throat," Mr. Livingston recalled. "He said, 'You may have a shot. Paxon may have a shot. Armey will have a shot. It will be interesting.'"
He said if he were calling the shots, Congress would spend more time in session and would take up more issues -- even those that are not politically viable now because of White House opposition.
"Regardless of whether they are vetoed," he said. "Let's pass some issues and send them to the president's desk."
He singled out legal reform and regulatory reform as examples, and said he would like to bring up partial-birth abortion "every three weeks," forcing the president to veto it again and again.
But he, like Mr. Gingrich, seemed skittish about repealing race- and sex-based preferences. He said something so sensitive would need to be thoroughly vetted in the House. That mirrors the position of Mr. Gingrich, who has blocked a bill repealing race- and sex-based quotas in government hiring, contracting and education.
"That's not something we should do lightly," Mr. Livingston said. "We should know where the conference is before we bring it up because it will become a tough issue for us in the elections."
Michele Davis, a spokeswoman for Mr. Armey, was reluctant to speculate about a leadership race that will begin next fall "at the earliest."
"Armey is looking forward to the two of them working together for the foreseeable future," she said. "Hypotheticals like that are far too far in the distant future."
But she noted that the agenda is full of substance, including banning taxation on the Internet, banning cloning, school choice, charter schools and education savings accounts.Copyright 1998 News World Communications, Inc.
Reprinted with permission of
The Washington Times.
To subscribe to the Washington Times National Weekly Edition, click this icon or call 800-363-9118.
