Redstate has endorsed John Shadegg (R-AZ) for the Republican House leadership post with the explanation that the two front runners, Blunt and Boehner are tainted by special interest money.

This is not an unreasonable position to take--Republicans staged a coup in the House largely on the basis of the Contract with America in which ethics were a significant part, yet I have some concerns about this.

Orrin Hatch made the comment recently that Democrats don't know how to act like a minority party, and the Republicans don't yet know how to act as the governing party. Acting as the governing party is a key concept here.

When you are in opposition, politics predominates, but we aren't and so it shouldn't. The most important element to consider in who would make a good House leader are the practical skills. In this respect, Tom Delay was inarguably very effective and the House Republicans need to find someone similarly capable.

Let's consider the Senate leadership as an example of what I am talking about. Trent Lott had his problems, but he was a canny leader in the Senate. Bill Frist was far more politically acceptable, but his subsequent performance has been disappointing. Harry Reid has been walking all over him and I doubt that he could have managed the same feat with Lott.

My point and recommendation is that no candidate for the House leadership should be supported simply on the basis that they have clean hands. They had also better be canny and effective managers as well. In the long term, poor leadership will negate any temporary political advantage that comes with the "right" image.

Shadegg in the running

Shadegg's letter to fellow Republican House members. . It concerns me that his letter only focuses on the reform requirements and fails to enumerate the practicals skills that would make him a good leader. Its a safe bet that anyone who ascends to the leadership is going to enact reform rules. We need more than clean hands on this issue.

Washington Post article on the leadership race.

Pajamas Media