Regardless of whether Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) or Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) prevails as the Senate's next majority leader, one thing seems certain: Either one will show more interest in the institution's often obscure traditions than the departing majority leader, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
What that means as a practical matter, however, is less certain. Some congressional scholars say it could mean greater bipartisan accord because McConnell and Reid are consummate deal-makers whose top priority is legislative achievement, whereas Frist's presidential ambitions have shadowed his comments and deeds as majority leader. But both men are also dogged by questions about financial dealings that could provide ammunition for opponents in the next Congress, which is virtually sure to be narrowly divided.
McConnell and Reid rose through the Senate ranks by mastering the rules and building strong relationships with colleagues. Both are combative lawyer-politicians who overcame childhood challenges and are now in their mid-60s. Unlike Frist, a surgeon, they are veteran practitioners of the Senate's opaque, clubby brand of politics, with no apparent desire to become president or grab television time to espouse their parties' goals.
Many senators say that either Reid or McConnell, because of their backgrounds, can lead the Senate with more skill than Frist, 54, who struggled to build winning coalitions on issues such as immigration, Social Security and the nominations of several judges and John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) said McConnell and Reid are tenacious politicians steeped in the Senate's ways. McConnell, he said, "is one of the savviest political operatives that I've ever worked with." He called Reid, a former amateur boxer, "an old fist-fighter and a hell of a trial lawyer."
Each has shown an occasional independent streak. McConnell was one of three GOP senators to vote against a constitutional ban on flag desecration, which failed this year by one vote. Reid was among 14 Democrats who backed it. Reid bucks Democratic orthodoxy by opposing legalized abortion in most circumstances.
Still, both men, Simpson said, will have to play down their partisan tendencies and emphasize their desire for legislative accomplishments if the next Congress is to succeed. "It doesn't matter who the leader is if there's no outreach to the other party," he said.
'Desire to work together'
Such efforts have begun. Reid phoned McConnell shortly before Congress recessed last month "to discuss his desire to work together next year on a bipartisan basis to work on the priorities of the American people," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. He said McConnell "expressed a similar desire and willingness."
In a recent interview, McConnell said he especially hopes the next Congress will address the long-term financial needs of Social Security and Medicare. He blamed Democrats for blocking President Bush's 2005 bid to revamp Social Security. "When are we going to deal with these problems?" he asked.
Reid said last week: "If Republicans are serious about addressing this nation's fiscal problems and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, Senate Democrats are willing to reach across the aisle and get to work." But he ruled out "privatizing Social Security."
Former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), now with a Washington lobbying firm, said that partisans and colleagues will pull Reid and McConnell in different directions and that the next Senate's fate will largely turn on how they react.
"They will be under great pressure from some in their ranks to engage in partisan combat, especially with the presidential election only two years away," Daschle said. "But regardless of who has the majority, they will also be under equal pressure to prove that they can govern."
In their combined 42 years in the Senate, McConnell and Reid have toiled energetically for their parties, raising funds and recruiting candidates while becoming personally well off. But their energies have triggered criticisms. Recent hard-hitting news articles have focused on questionable land transactions by Reid and aggressive fundraising by McConnell.
The two men say they have played by the rules and have broken no laws, and neither appears subject to a serious challenge from party colleagues. But the recent round of articles suggests that both continue to test the limits on raising and spending campaign money -- a practice almost certain to draw more scrutiny when one of them assumes the Senate's top post.
"The no-quarter-asked, no-quarter-given atmosphere is not going to disappear after this campaign," said Ross K. Baker, a Rutgers University scholar on Congress. "Any weakness will be highlighted; any lapse will be emphasized."
Money issues
McConnell, 64, who battled polio as a child, is best-known for his fierce resistance to a series of campaign finance changes generally dubbed McCain-Feingold. He argues unapologetically that politicians should raise as much money as legally possible to further their goals and attack their enemies.
His no-holds-barred approach to fundraising has endeared him to many GOP colleagues but has prompted criticism from others. Most recently, the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader published a series of articles portraying the senator as an insatiable solicitor of political money from interest groups -- including tobacco companies, car makers and pharmaceutical firms -- with whom he is cozy.
The articles concluded that McConnell has raised nearly $220 million during his Senate career, and pushes so hard that even his closest allies sometimes rebel. "Are you feeling a choking sensation?" a vice president for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. was quoted as saying in an e-mail after the senator had asked the firm for $200,000 in "soft money" to aid Republican campaigns.
McConnell defends his aggressive fundraising, equating political advocacy with free speech. "You must have money in politics, because it's the only way the candidates can get their message across," he said.
Reid, 66, has occasionally been forced to explain his involvement in transactions that mixed politics with profits. In 2003, the Los Angeles Times published lengthy articles chronicling his sponsorship of legislation that promised benefits to Nevada developers, corporations and institutions whose lobbyists included the senator's sons and son-in-law. Reid's staff later barred relatives from lobbying his office.
This month, the Associated Press reported that Reid did not disclose to Congress that he sold land in Nevada to a friend's company in 2001 and took part ownership of the firm. He collected a sizeable profit when the land was sold again in 2004. Reid, who had a hardscrabble childhood, said he had never tried to hide his ownership of the land, but later he amended his ethics reports to more fully reflect the transactions.
Reid said these issues are behind him, and he promised a new tone in Washington if Democrats take over the Senate.