http://nationaljournal.com/about/cookcolumn.htm 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 
OFF TO THE RACES
Bush: Leader Or Figurehead? 

With the Democrats' Bubba era having come to an end and the Republicans'
George II period now beginning, one important question for the GOP is
what kind of party leader President Bush will be. Will he be an
aggressive party leader, playing an integral role in trying to retain
the Republican majorities in the House, Senate and governorships? Or
will he be more of a figurehead, making cameo appearances at party
fundraisers? While having majorities in the House and Senate has always
been important for presidents, seldom has it been as critical as it will
be for Bush. 

More often than not on taking office, presidents have viewed the party
as a nuisance. President Johnson was an exception to that rule, even to
the point of taking an active role in who was hired and fired and how
much people on the Democratic National Committee staff were paid.
President Carter, who at the time bragged that he never had met another
Democratic president, was more typical; minimalist involvement was the
name of his game. 

President Reagan changed all that. Not only did Reagan raise an
unprecedented amount of money for the Republican National Committee and
the House and Senate campaign committees, but he also became the party's
"recruiter-in-chief." More than any other president, Reagan was the
"closer," as the GOP's campaign committees would bring in dozens of
wavering potential candidates, wooing them with party leaders and big
name members on the Hill and then taking them to the Oval Office for
some serious presidential stroking. More often than not, a state
representative or senator, local business leader or lawyer was wowed by
a 15 minute sit-down with Reagan. Out on the campaign trail, probably no
previous president had hit the road as much as Reagan did in 1986, in a
futile effort to retain the GOP's Senate majority. 

The George I presidency scaled back considerably the role of party
leader. The elder Bush did many of the same things that Reagan did, but
much less frequently. His interests were far more on policy in general,
and foreign policy in particular. 

Instead of playing the recruiter-in-chief role, President Clinton was
the fundraiser-in-chief, very likely raising more money in his eight
years in office than all previous presidents combined. While raising
millions of dollars, keeping the Democratic Party afloat and helping it
regain strength after the 1994 debacle that cost it the House majority
for the first time in 40 years, Clinton was more the "recruiter of last
resort," as one observer put it. Clinton would close the deal if no one
else could do it; Democratic Georgia Sen. Zell Miller and Democratic
California Rep. Mike Honda are two examples. 

While having majorities in the House and Senate has always been
important for presidents, seldom has it been as critical as it will be
for Bush. While more Republicans are in the House than when Bush I,
Reagan, President Ford or President Nixon were in office, fewer
conservative Democrats are in the body to offset defections among the
moderate to liberal Republicans. And many fewer Democrats are willing to
back administration measures in the Senate, with the 60-seat vote
imperative for breaking filibusters or -- more often and importantly --
the threat of a filibuster. 

Then there is the psychological element. The conventional wisdom six
months ago was that if Democrats lost the presidency and fell short in
their efforts to reclaim the House and Senate majorities they lost in
1994, party morale would plummet. Retirements would follow, and
recruiting of strong Democratic challengers and open seat candidates
would be miserable. 

Instead, a combination of the closeness of the presidential race, the
circumstances of the Florida challenge and the 50-50 tie in the Senate
emboldened Democrats. Their spirit now is actually much stronger than
anyone could have imagined. Going into 2002, and with history indicating
that the party holding the White House has lost seats in every
post-Civil War midterm election except two (1934 and 1998), coming up
short again would probably devastate the Democrats. 

In the Senate, if the Republican goal line stand in 2002 holds, after
the Democrats' pickup of four seats in 2000, it will also be a huge blow
to Democratic morale. 

In short, both Republicans and President Bush have a lot on the line.
With a myriad of critically important and competing demands on that
scarcest commodity of all -- the president's time -- it will be
interesting and important to see how he juggles the ball

Charlie Cook