Effort to unseat Burton might actually help him
WASHINGTON – Lucky, lucky Dan Burton.
The 14-term suburban Indianapolis congressman is looking at a robust Republican primary next year, at least measured by the number of names on the ballot.
His opponents are not flakes; there’s a state representative, an emergency room doctor, the former executive director of the state Republican Party, a PR executive.
All have been candidates (some successfully), know how to raise money, have established GOP connections, understand complicated issues, can express their ideas and are not likely to make the kind of mistakes neophyte politicians usually stumble on.
They’re starting early, have some degree of campaign operations and are generating buzz in some Republican circles. Any one of them would be a credible head-to-head opponent to Burton.
That makes Burton lucky, how?
The four candidates share a common purpose: Get rid of Burton. After 28 years in Congress, a mediocre legislative record, a tarnished personal past and mockable leadership history, Burton should be retired, the candidates contend, albeit not in such stark terms. Presumably, they agree with the Indianapolis Star’s editorial board, which called on Burton to take his congressional pension and go home.
The Star said Burton offers his constituents naught but “a record of self-serving, sometimes bizarre behavior that has drawn national negative press and cost the veteran lawmaker in terms of party favor and committee assignments. Antics such as the missed votes to play golf in 2007 and the ‘no’ vote on a House ethics bill that passed 430-1 are now legend.”
Burton is on none-too-solid ground with the electorate. He turned in a lackluster 52 percent in last year’s GOP primary, putting him in the danger zone for any incumbent and piquing the interest of the four who have announced their candidacies for 2010. (His district is solidly Republican, so the true election in any congressional race comes during the primary.)
But Burton is lucky because Luke Messer, Mike Murphy, Brose McVey and John McGoff will compete for the same volunteers, the same money, the same endorsements, the same air time, the same anti-incumbent sentiment, the same let’s-give-Burton-a-retirement-party eagerness.
No matter how strong those elements are, there’s not enough to go around, and the value of Burton’s incumbency will be magnified.
McVey and one of Messer’s top supporters are separately floating the idea of a gentlemen’s agreement “primary” in which either party elders would select the best of the bunch or the candidates would establish a list of qualifications (volunteers, endorsements, contributions) and agree that whoever has the most by, say, February would “win,” and the other three would drop out.
There’s some attractiveness to this idea from a purely logical perspective. However, politics is more emotional than logical, and this idea hasn’t caught too much fire.
For one thing, most politicians are not deficient in ego; each one always honestly thinks she or he is the smartest person in the room and would do a far better job in office than anyone else. (Case in point: Even knowing it’s a crowded field that favors Burton because of its size, none of these contenders has withdrawn.)
And there’s the hard-to-counter “this is a decision best left to voters” rejoinder.
The financial backers, endorsers, volunteers and other measurements of candidate attractiveness could coalesce behind one or two of the non-Burton candidates, thereby sending a message to the others that now is not their time.
A five-way race among strong contenders stands to be messy, costly, exhausting for the candidates.
However, voters may benefit. If the candidates spend time talking about health care, energy policy, the unemployment rate and other issues voters care about, people who pay attention will have a chance to engage in a lively debate.
And having back-to-back difficult primaries forces Burton to spend more time in Indiana, which is generally a good thing for constituents.
Many Republicans have thrown up alarms at the (now likely) confirmation of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court nominee because she is sure to indulge in “liberal judicial activism.”Sounds nasty, but what is judicial activism?