Post Magazine: House Rules

Between telemarketing, fundraising appearances and the perpetual pursuit of pork, can a first-term congressman find time to serve the people?

Read the story: House Rules

Washington Post Magazine staff writer Michael Leahy was online Monday, June 11, at Noon ET to examine how freshman congressman Joe Courtney is learning that the first requirement of power is self-preservation.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Bethesda, Md.: I haven't read many political stories so detailed and intimate about the everyday doings of a congressional guy. Loved that apartment. Does somebody like Joe Courtney believe in all the things he's pushing for, like the submarine, or does he have to sell himself on stuff like that too?

Michael Leahy: Thanks for the nice comment. I think it is fair to say that, before selling anybody else on the need for a particular project benefiting his district or state, an officeholder must sell himself on its worthiness. Courtney has immersed himself in the issue of the second nuclear attack sub since taking office. Embracing an expensive defense project strikes some observers as an unnatural fit for a liberal, antiwar Democratic, but Courtney argues that he is very defense-oriented, that he is worried about a Chinese sub buildup and that the United States must respond accordingly. Of course, that an annual second sub would provide a boost to his district's economic well-being isn't lost on him. So it's a mix of defense considerations and bringing home the bacon. Certainly, he has solid political reasons for not ceding any defense turf to possible Republican challengers in his district.

_______________________

Michael Leahy: Hey, I forgot to greet everybody at the outset. Welcome. And feel free to pose any questions about Courtney, congressional politics, or politics in general. Let's get back to the questions.

_______________________

Michael Leahy: Sorry that we've some technical problems today.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: To Mr. Leahy: Kudos on your terrific examination of the incoming congressman's challenges and perils. I was struck by how while Courtney is always running, the Democrats are doing things to protect him 24-7. The extent to which the Democrats are protecting all these freshmen and other vulnerable members really indicates the precarious hold they have on things. Did you get a feeling that this fever to protect newcomers reaches all the way up to the Democratic and Republican leadership? Did anything on this scale occur back for Democrats or Republicans in the '60s or '70s, or are parties much more sophisticated today in protecting newbies?

Michael Leahy: Thank you. Yes, I do think the scope and scale of this is different. I'll give you an example: Early during my research, I was invited to sit in on an otherwise private breakfast meeting Nancy Pelosi was having with the class of freshmen Democrats and a few other Democratic members. It is ordinarily a meeting barred to the media, but Pelosi's staff let me in for a while.

I was sitting there, kind of wondering why I'd been granted access, when suddenly Pelosi delivered glowing remarks to the room about Joe Courtney. And I realized that the moment had been orchestrated just for me -- and Courtney; that the hope was that I'd write a scene in which the Speaker went on and on about the great leadership of Rep. Courtney on this issue and that issue. Would a Speaker of the House made a similar effort on behalf of a freshman congressman 30 years ago? I tend to doubt it.

Weeks after the breakfast, I essentially asked the same question of Pelosi, who chuckled and said that she doubted, too, that Democratic leadership back in the '60s and '70s would have gone to those lengths for freshmen. It speaks to the current leadership's recognition that their fate is tied to the well-being and political viability of the freshmen.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Mike -- well into the early '80s when I was growing up, members of Congress typically brought their families to the area and their children went to school here so they could have more time together. When did that change, why, and what impact do you think it's having on the ability of members to have a good marriage/family life -- and also the ability of both parties to attract good candidates given the rat race the job has become?

Michael Leahy: It's an important question -- you're right: it is different. Part of it, of course, is that spouses have their own very important careers in many cases, and aren't crazy about trying to build new careers with new clients, etc. in the Washington area. Audrey Courtney is a nurse at a Connecticut middle school, and the Courtneys' two children have their own lives. The oldest, Bobby, is just finishing his junior year at a high school he likes, so he would have been just as unlikely to be eager to transfer to a Washington school, I suspect.

You often do hear nowadays about politicians who are bypassing runs for the House or Senate in favor of running for statewide office and remaining close to their families. So I think you're right: doubtless, this must have a real effect on the quantity and, ultimately, quality of candidates.

_______________________

Boston, but formerly Vernon, Conn.: I just want to say great job with the Courtney story. I supported the congressman in his first bid back in 2002. He's well-respected in town (regularly having lunch in a great Vernon diner during his campaign) and despite being unable to vote for him this time around I was rooting for him all the way. I've met Rob Simmons and was not a fan -- he struck me as being very impressed with himself. I was interested in your take on District 2 showing a new "independent" streak. To be honest, I feel the district has been independent for quite some time. Sam Gejdenson barely eked out a victory in 1994 over Ed Munster (21 votes, to be exact). Sounds like you got to spend a little time in my hometown (modest is a very apt description). What, if anything, did you gather about Courtney's relationship to the state/district, and his chances for re-election?

Michael Leahy: Thanks. A couple of comments here. Both Rob Simmons and Courtney generally are regarded around the District as "gracious" and "friendly." (I was somewhat surprised how often I heard those adjectives.) Even the fiercest opponents of the two men commonly admit to liking their bearing and dispositions. Their 2006 race against each other turned on Iraq -- period. Simmons, who still enjoys a lot of admirers in the District, would have been a formidable foe for Courtney in 2008. Knowing this, Courtney amassed an impressive fundraising war chest in the early months of 2007, wresting away many of Simmon's old contributors. This alone, plus other advantages in incumbency (notably his efforts on the second sub), would have given him a significant advantage over Simmons in a 2008 run and made him the favorite to win. But by no means was Courtney a sure thing over Simmons in '08.

Re: Courtney's reelection chances now -- with Simmons having taken himself out of the race, Courtney now must be regarded as a solid favorite to retain the seat.

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: My compliments on a superbly written and insightful story about the freshman congressman Courtney. I was a little amazed and taken aback by how the fundraising and politicking can never end for House members under our current arrangement and campaign finance structure. They always need more money for that next race, which always is just around the corner. Did Courtney get depressed at all about the never-ending need to fundraise, or have any suggestions for fixing the system?

Michael Leahy: Thanks. As with a lot of politicians from both parties, Courtney would like to see some kind of campaign finance reform that would ease his burden in raising money. When I sometimes said to him that I was amazed (and dismayed) about just how many of a congressman's hours were spent raising money, he'd shake his head and say he didn't disagree. Interestingly, Rob Simmons' feelings were the same -- he lamented about how many hours were lost to fundraising; he'd like to see campaign finance reform, too.

_______________________

Washington: Very good and interesting story, thanks. How much time do congressman actually spend on the phones or at receptions to raise money, and how much money did congressman Courtney say he needed to raise to stay competitive for his House seat?

Michael Leahy: He'll need, as the story indicates, to raise $2 million to $3 million to wage a strong re-election campaign. Again, as I note in the story, he typically spends parts of two days a week at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) headquarters raising money on the phone, and is often out on evenings and, of course, weekends doing fundraising.

_______________________

Oxford, Miss.: Thanks again for a well-written, insightful story. Obviously most congressmen are busier than we realize. Given all that's on his plate, what is the bottom line of his motivation -- public service, political life, etc.?

Michael Leahy: Oh, I think it's both. He's a political junkie, going back to his days as a Dukakis delegate. And he does often love to talk policy, reflecting a bit of a wonkish streak.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Just out of curiosity, in 1995 did Washington Post Magazine do a glowing tribute of a freshman conservative Republican congressman after the GOP had taken control of the House for the first time in 40 years, just like it did this Sunday for a liberal Democrat Congressman after that party had regained power after 12? Just wondering.

Michael Leahy: We love to examine the lives of Republicans and Democrats alike -- officeholders and candidates. It's funny that you say "glowing" -- I have a few messages from people asking why we had to put a new Democrat under such "scrutiny" in looking at such things as his fundraising, etc.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: It is a shame that so much time has to be wasted by all members of Congress worrying about their re-elections. Yet I believe Joe Courtney won his seat -- even though it was by such a narrow margin -- over an incumbent Republican because his views were closer to the views of his constituents. Shouldn't that make him more comfortable in winning re-election, as he now has both the power of incumbency as well as a district that in general matches his views?

Michael Leahy: As you well know, while the state tends to vote Democratic in presidential elections -- and, say, Senate races -- the 2nd District has exhibited a real streak of independence through the years. So it never will be a lock for Democrats, as Simmons demonstrated for three terms.

_______________________

Baltimore: Excellent article. I don't think a lot of people after reading the article would trade places with Courtney. The touches you had about his life were so wonderfully revealing. I don't think the life would be for me -- that lonely existence in that apartment is reason enough not to go into politics. Do you think some new congressmen wear down from that kind of a dumpy habitat and that kind of grind? Do they get to Washington and say "this isn't what I thought it'd be"? Do you think that could happen to somebody like Courtney? Is there a turn-on that keeps somebody like that excited at all?

Michael Leahy: Thanks. No, I think Courtney knew all along what he was getting into with that apartment, the fundraising, etc. His wife believes he is walking on air these days, having achieved his dream of making it to Congress. Sure, he must trudge back to that apartment, but during most of his hours he is walking through the halls where a lot of his political heroes walked. No, I don't ever see him giving it up -- unless it's for a run at higher office.

_______________________

Michael Leahy: Well, as usual we've exceeded our time. Many thanks for participating, and I'll look forward to chatting with everyone the next time around.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.