He Likes Ike

I've received a number of emails from readers who complained that my recent posts on the midterm elections, particularly last week's item on Congressman Ike Skelton of Missouri, the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, were far too negative about the new Congress. I received one thoughtful reply from a Democrat and longtime observer of the House who argued that the change in congressional leadership will have consequences far more important than those I envisioned. My correspondent agreed to let me post his email as long as he remained anonymous. (He has no financial business relating to the people or comments made in his email, but follows congressional affairs closely and has periodic contact with Hill staffers.) I'm dubious about some of the writer's assertions—I agree, for example, that the B-2 bomber may not be as much of a dog as the B-1, but it still seems like a boondoggle to me. But many of his comments are a useful counterpoint to my pessimism.

Dear Ken,

I take friendly exception to your bleak portrayal of the probable change (or lack thereof) in ethical behavior in the new House. There are clearly a number of powerful incoming chairmen and subcommittee chairmen who are less reform-minded than others. But I think that the upcoming changes will bring at least a marginal improvement in how our government conducts itself, and in many instances the improvement will be drastic. I think the new leadership is a huge plus—particularly when you consider just how horrific the old leadership was.

Take for example the inclusion of the flu vaccine indemnification amendment that was inserted into last December's Defense Appropriation Conference Report after the conference was closed. This change was made at the behest of Senator Bill Frist and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, drafted by K Street lobbyists, and sent to the president without being introduced or reviewed by a committee of jurisdiction. Hastert not only failed to slow efforts to raid the Treasury for personal enrichment, he led the charge. The congressman may have made substantially more on real estate investments as a result of his earmarks on the Prairie Parkway than Randy “Duke” Cunningham did from taking bribes.

I find your comparison of outgoing House Armed Services Committee chair Duncan Hunter to incoming chair Ike Skelton particularly inappropriate. The development of both the B-1 and B-2 bombers created controversy, but there is a huge difference in the current status of the two programs as mature systems. The B-1 is a white elephant that has never played a role in the nation's defense posture, and it is difficult to make an argument that the plane will have any value in the future. In contrast, the B-2 has been used several times as a central component in our military planning and in crises all over the world. It is hard to conjure up scenarios in which the B-2 would not play a critical role.

All such details, however, are somewhat off-point in terms of the comparison you made between Hunter's style and Skelton's. Hunter has always been viewed as a fast-and-loose player with shady friends (starting with the “Dukester”) and inappropriate connections to a variety of questionable interests (including a host of small-time Pentagon contractors who subsist on contracts that are granted by the Department of Defense under pressure from Congress).

Ike is not as skeptical of some emerging weapons programs as I would like him no be, nor is he as forceful a representative as I would hope. But there is a huge difference between Ike Skelton and Duncan Hunter. If the press cannot detect that difference and report it accurately, the prospects for important change will remain small.

Name Withheld by Request

[More Washington Babylon]

[Contact Ken Silverstein]

[About Washington Babylon]