Senate earmark battle turns very personal

A battle between the offices of Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) over a controversial earmark intensified earlier this month, displaying how debates on Capitol Hill sometimes can turn personal.

The senators had been at odds over the matter for much of the summer, but it would reach a new level when John Hart, communications director for Coburn, forwarded a news article detailing his boss’s request for an investigation of a defense contractor.

{mosads}The target of the would-be investigation, 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), employs Patrick Nelson, the son of the centrist senator.

Sen. Nelson had requested an earmark for 21CSI, triggering a heated battle between the senators that has raged for weeks.

“This will shut that f—er up,” Hart stated in an Aug. 1 e-mail sent from his Senate account to several of his colleagues. “I can’t wait to send an In Case You Missed It to Nebraska press that will be forwarded to a–face.”

In a reply-all, Coburn legislative director Roland Foster joked that media calls should be directed to Nelson’s hairdresser and “his son’s probation officer.”

Patrick Nelson, who has never had a probation officer, did not comment for this article.
Hart has since said that his missives were directed at Nelson spokesman David DiMartino, not Sen. Nelson. Still, it’s the kind of bare-knuckles politics that pollsters and academics say is largely driving the public’s rising disapproval of Congress.

But House and Senate staffers say the e-mails are also a natural extension of the kind of aggressive strategy that many believe is necessary to keep their bosses afloat in a partisan atmosphere as cutthroat as ever. That glimpse of intra-office banter puts on display the fact that the loss of comity in the Senate, frequently mourned by congressional observers and lawmakers themselves, more often than not begins among the unelected — staffers who are rewarded for protecting and defending their bosses with everything they’ve got until the moment they go too far.

Aides who have seen the e-mail exchange say such exchanges are not rare on Capitol Hill, making Hart and Foster’s exchange different only because the messages fell into others’ hands, outside of Coburn’s office.

When Hart typed out the three recipients for that first e-mail, he was one letter off on one colleague’s name. That meant that when he hit “Send,” the e-mail went to a staffer in the office of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.)

It was a mistake that could have happened to anyone, but not every senator spent much of 2006 trying to strike an earmark for a bridge in Alaska, as Coburn did.

When Hart realized his error, he sent another e-mail to Murkowski aide Brian O’Leary apologizing for the exchange and asking him not to pass it on.

Aides in Murkowski’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Those e-mails prove political motive’

A week before the e-mail exchange, Coburn and Nelson each told The Hill that their disagreement was all policy.

“It’s never a personal or partisan exercise for Dr. Coburn,” Hart said.

DiMartino, however, said the comments in Hart’s and Foster’s e-mails tell a different story. He said Nelson would not comment on the e-mails, but he added that he considered them confirmation that his boss had been targeted.

“Those e-mails prove political motive,” DiMartino said.

John Feehery, who served as communications director for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) during the most divisive years of his reign, said it is easy for aides to find themselves on crusades on behalf of their bosses. When they lose sight of the policy debate that put members at odds in the first place, mistakes can get made.

“That’s why it’s important for the member to know exactly what the staff is doing,” Feehery said, adding, “I’ve been through it.”

Coburn chief of staff Mike Schwartz laughed when asked if the exchange reflected Coburn’s attitude toward Nelson’s office.

“No, no, no,” he said. “I’ve seen this war of words escalating with both staffs … it was a dumb thing for my staffers to do.”

Schwartz later added, “One of Dr. Coburn’s core missions is to unmask and eliminate examples of wasteful spending.  However, he never intends to ridicule or embarrass individual senators.  Our staff profoundly regrets their use of inappropriate language in this email which suggests this was a personal battle when that was never our intent.”

Attempting to ease the rhetoric
 
Two hours before Hart clicked “Send” on the first e-mail of a celebratory chain, Nelson and Coburn saw one another on the Senate floor, each casting a vote in opposition to a Democratic amendment that would increase the cost of a government insurance program for children. They were cordial, as always, said DiMartino, although they didn’t stop to talk.

That morning, Coburn had dialed Nelson’s personal cell phone number, returning a call Nelson made when he learned that Hart had sent out an e-mail criticizing him to Nebraska reporters.

Coburn agreed that the debate over a request by Nelson to earmark funds for his son’s company may have overheated, and he was going to have his staff roll back the rhetoric.

Coburn may have told his staff to hold its fire, but he did not withdraw his amendment to strip Nelson’s earmark.

Foster wondered if that meant the fun was over.

“How many weeks has this been in the press now? If we are shut down by the boss, you can just say we won’t comment since the company is under investigation. We refer all questions to Sen. Nelson’s hair dresser and his son’s probation officer,” Foster stated in his reply e-mail.

Not a new conflict
 
The conflict between Nelson and Coburn goes back at least two years, to when Coburn, the Senate’s most fierce opponent of a practice that allows senators to direct federal funds to home-state projects, went after a Nelson-requested earmark. In the course of that debate — ultimately won by Nelson — the two made a deal where Coburn would talk to Nelson before he publicly sought to cut one of the Nebraskan’s projects.

Coburn, though, instructed his office to file an amendment stripping Nelson’s earmark for 21CSI before Nelson had a chance to defend it, which seemed to break their agreement. And even though Coburn later apologized for what he deemed a mix-up, the staffs were off and running.

Over the last several weeks, print and broadcast news stories have kept the conflict alive, as aides to both senators privately and publicly shopped stories around to media outlets. That wouldn’t be unusual if either senator were in cycle, but Coburn won’t face reelection until 2010, and Nelson’s next race is in 2012.

Now the issue is largely moot. On Aug. 10, Nelson said he would withdraw his support for the earmark altogether, effectively handing a victory over to Coburn’s office.

Yet political experts say these types of congressional battles hurt the reputation of Congress.

A Reuters/Zogby poll showed approval ratings in mid-August at 15 percent — less than half of President Bush’s rating in the same poll. Surveys reflect a widespread frustration with the handling of the war in Iraq, but many congressional observers say the malaise goes deeper than any one particular policy decision. Pollster John Zogby said that each time the public sees members of Congress in the news for something other than passing legislation — like the fierce back-and-forth that culminated in the e-mail chain in Coburn’s office — they tend to take it as confirmation that Congress doesn’t deserve its faith.

“It’s a modality now with people, that’s like ‘See, I told you so,’” Zogby said. “These kinds of squabbles come under the category of ‘Who needs this now?’”