GOP Contest Guided by Lessons of Battles Past

But ideology is not the only factor. There has been some talk of Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (Calif.) running. By the standards of the GOP caucus, he is middle-of-the-road. His biggest burden, say associates, is an abrasive personality -- a problem in a contest in which popularity matters.

"He is tacitly brilliant, but he has found a way to alienate almost everybody in the conference," said a veteran of leadership elections.

In some ways, a leadership race resembles a race for student body president. Boehner is an affable, fun-loving member who often shares a smoke with colleagues between votes and who is perhaps best known for hosting popular fundraising bashes attended by lawmakers, lobbyists and staff members. Blunt is more reserved and introspective, less of a glad-hander than Boehner.

"I think personality plays a big role," said Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.), who is backing Boehner.

The voting is done in secret and details of the outcome are never revealed, so members are free to vote for their favorite candidate -- even if they had promised their vote to someone else.

One of the most popular ways to curry support is to buy it. It is an unspoken prerequisite that a candidate has to be an aggressive fundraiser who has campaigned for GOP candidates and, more important, has directed tens of thousands of dollars to the campaign accounts of his or her colleagues.

The only difference this year is how aggressive a candidate can be in boasting about it. Boehner, Blunt and Cantor are all near the top of the list of Republican contributors to fellow Republicans, but they are not mentioning their money-raising skills in public in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Republicans ushered in what might be called a performance-based leadership structure -- in which favors and popularity matter more than seniority -- in 1989. Dick Cheney, then a House member from Wyoming who was serving as GOP whip, was tapped as secretary of defense. What followed was a memorable race between then-Rep. Edward R. Madigan (Ill.) and a young Gingrich (Ga.), which underscored why these intramural contests can have big consequences. Gingrich, then a back-bench conservative seeking change inside the GOP, beat Madigan by a single vote -- setting in motion a broader leadership challenge that five years later would result in the Republican takeover of Congress and Gingrich's rise to the speakership.

Victory can turn an ordinary lawmaker into a power broker. The spoils include a bigger salary and staff, a large office inside the Capitol instead of a small one across the street, and a seat at the leadership table inside the speaker's office. At a time when power is centralized in Congress, a few leaders decide what legislation to pass and when, and which members will become chairmen and gain seats on the most influential committees. The leaders are invited to the White House for strategy sessions -- and are invited on the best trips by the most influential special interests. Lobbyists flock to these members' offices in hopes of raising money for the members and currying favor with them. The more money they raise, the more powerful they become.

All of which explains why these races are run with sharp elbows. Blunt, Boehner and Cantor are all following the winning formula started by Gingrich: Create teams of close allies to secure the votes of specific groups of lawmakers based on philosophical, geographic and generational breakdowns. Blunt and Boehner have announced teams of about two dozen members who are assisting their operations.

Those already in the leadership are at an advantage early on -- they have access to a database that can help them reach colleagues and top staff members at home or at their favorite vacation spots.

The candidates create their own database to track votes, with some assigning numbers to track how committed they believe their supporters are. They double- and triple-check the promised votes -- and try to persuade House members to go public with their support. Candidates like to secure the backing of big-name committee chairmen or leaders of voting blocs as a show of force.

Some members who decide not to run try to form a voting bloc to influence the race or to force concessions on the party's agenda, committee assignments or other matters. In this case, the Republican Study Group, an alliance of about 100 conservatives led by Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), is the big prize.

Pence said he will remain neutral at least until the group meets later this month to discuss the election and consider endorsements.

Many members of Pence's group want to hold off in anticipation of the one thing that makes these races often impossible to handicap -- the unexpected twist. This is what Shadegg is hoping for. In this case, the political environment is hostile to big-money Republicans, and younger lawmakers might come to the conclusion that neither Blunt nor Boehner would offer the clean break from the DeLay era that the party needs to move beyond the scandal.