Reporter Profile | David Drucker – Roll Call
DAVID M. DRUCKER
Staff Reporter, Roll Call
David Drucker is a prominent Staff Reporter for Roll Call, the
newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955 and a premier source for
timely news, objective facts and analysis, and coverage of elections
and the politics of legislation. His coverage includes happenings in
the Senate, campaigns and broad, national political trends. He was a
leader in Roll Call’s coverage of President Barack Obama’s drive to
pass historic health care reform legislation. Drucker has been with
Roll Call since August 2005. Every so often he can be found making
an appearance on C-Span, Fox News, Talk Radio105.7 FM and AM
570 with Rod Arquette, ABC’s Top Line, The O’Reilly Factor, and
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
Prior to his current position at Roll Call, Drucker worked for the Sacramento bureau of the Los
Angeles Daily News, where he covered the politics and policy of California government, including
the historic 2003 gubernatorial recall campaign that saw Arnold Schwarzenegger advance to the
governor’s office.
One could credit Drucker’s professional background for his poise and approach when covering a
story. Before he began investing his time in covering politics and well before his career in
journalism, Drucker dedicated eight years working in the sales and marketing fields. Choosing this
industry and not switching to politics until after his college graduation enables him to view his
subject matter differently than his Roll Call colleagues.
While covering politics in Washington, one can either beat around the bush or tell it like it is.
Drucker chooses the latter, and always gives his readers the straight scoop. In doing so, he tends to
cover a variety of contentious issues – which can occasionally deem his articles as being
controversial in nature.
A native of Malibu, California, Drucker graduated from the University of California – Los Angeles
with a bachelor’s degree in history.
Recent Articles:
Senate Republicans Dread Drawn-Out GOP Primary (3/14/12)
Republican Donors in Limbo (3/13/12)
For the GOP, It’s Back to the Future (3/9/12)
Super Tuesday Analysis: The Long Slog Continues (3/7/12)
Senate Republicans Dread Drawn-Out GOP Primary
March 14, 2012, Midnight
Waiting until the late August convention in Tampa to select a GOP presidential nominee would
essentially hand a second term to President Barack Obama, prominent Senate Republicans said
Tuesday.
Some in the GOP are speculating that the four remaining presidential candidates will be unable to
secure the required 1,144 delegates, pushing the decision to a convention floor vote that is typically
an orchestrated formality. Senate Republicans expect their party to crown a nominee by the time
the primary season ends in June, thus avoiding such a scenario. But they caution that failure to do
so would be a political disaster.
“It would be a big mistake on our part,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.), who is not aligned with a
presidential candidate. “If we don’t have a nominee [until] Labor Day, we’re in trouble.”
On primary day in Alabama, Hawaii and Mississippi, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
maintained a sizable delegate lead over former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), ex-Sen. Rick Santorum
(Pa.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Texas). Before Tuesday’s contests, Romney’s count stood at 454, with
Santorum in second at 217, followed by Gingrich at 107 and Paul at 47, according to the Associated
Press.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the leader of Romney’s Capitol Hill Whip team, said that how the governor
finished in Alabama and Mississippi could have a major effect on the race going forward.
Blunt suggested that a victory in just one of these conservative Southern states could help Romney
wrap up the race sooner rather than later. Given the proportional awarding of delegates in many
states and Romney’s occasional trouble securing the votes of self-described “very conservative”
voters, even many political observers who expect the governor to win the nomination say it could
take him until June.
“I think the way he finishes in these two states today is important,” Blunt said. “I expect to have a
nominee by the time we go to the convention.”
Most Congressional Republicans who have made endorsements are backing Romney. But much of
their worry over a contested convention, or one that is brokered and produces a different candidate
altogether, is born of logistics and timing.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the GOP White House nominee four years ago, said that every day the
2012 primary continues is one less day before Nov. 6 that Republicans can train their campaign fire
on Obama’s record and soften the president’s re-election prospects. To underscore his point,
McCain cited polling that has at times shown the Republican candidates with low personal
favorability numbers and Obama in decent shape for re-election.
“Every day that goes by is a day that’s lost,” said McCain, a Romney supporter.
McCain conceded he wasn’t sure how a contested convention would affect the GOP’s White House
prospects. But Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), also a Romney supporter, said it could be fatal.
Thune said failing to select a nominee by the end of June — any nominee — would allow Obama to
escape the damage an opposition GOP campaign might inflict until September, by which time it
would be too late to fund and organize an effective national organization capable of competing with
the president’s political machine.
In the event of a contested convention, Thune indicated that he would expect the GOP candidates to
spend July and August continuing to raise primary campaign money to fund attacks against each
other in an effort to sway convention delegates, who are not scheduled to meet in Tampa until Aug.
27.
“That’s incredibly problematic for us. If we’re out there sort of in this uncertainty zone between
now and the end of August and we have to turn around in a short time period, put together an
organization and resource it, it’s incredibly problematic,” said Thune, the Republican Conference
chairman. “I just don’t see it.”
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) acknowledged that failing to elect a nominee by the time of the last primary
in June — in Utah — could put the Republicans at a disadvantage against Obama. But DeMint, who
expects the GOP to at least have a “nominee apparent” by the end of the primary season, said a
contested convention might have some positive side effects.
In particular, DeMint said, the intense media focus on the undecided Republican contest would give
the GOP candidates a cost-free platform to push ideas and hammer Obama, possibly obscuring
coverage of the president.
“I always look for the silver lining; it would keep all eyes on Republicans until the convention,”
DeMint said, although he cautioned: “The reality is the raising of money, in that short of time, to
come anywhere near what Obama’s going to have, is going to be difficult. We’re going to have to
count on the American people to sort it out.”
Republican Donors in Limbo
March 13, 2012, Midnight
Some Republican strategists believe having Mitt Romney as the presidential nominee would give
the party its best chance at winning the House and Senate majorities.
The extended Republican presidential primary has left many GOP donors paralyzed — unsure of
whether to invest in the upcoming battle against President Barack Obama or focus on
Congressional races.
Party insiders increasingly believe that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will win the
nomination, a development that would likely open the donor spigot for the general election. But a
victory by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) or ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) would probably have
the opposite effect. A GOP money machine skeptical of the party’s White House prospects would
likely spend instead on House and Senate races as the best hope for a November gain.
According to interviews with a dozen mostly Washington-based Republicans, including Capitol Hill
aides, fundraisers, strategists and K Street operatives, the GOP’s Congressional candidates and
national campaign committees would prefer to avoid such a financial windfall, believing the party’s
best chance of holding the House and flipping the Senate is to field a strong, well-funded
presidential campaign that runs a sophisticated voter-turnout operation.
“This is a discussion that has been happening in all corners of the GOP consultant class,” a wellplaced Republican said Monday.
There are some Republican strategists less concerned with the nominee than the fact that the GOP
primary is diverting attention from Obama’s record and allowing the president to rebuild
politically. They worry that a stronger Obama could help Democrats downticket.
Republicans are additionally concerned that they cannot produce a coherent, unified election-year
message until their primary produces a nominee for them to rally around.
One Republican strategist focused on House races said both Romney and Santorum offer GOP
Congressional candidates opportunity for success — just different ones. The strategist emphasized
that the key is getting the 2012 campaign to the point where the House playing field is set and
Obama is the focus. “Until we get there, I don’t care much about the other stuff,” this individual said.
But in comparison to Gingrich, Santorum and Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), the consensus among GOP
operatives is that Romney provides Republicans with their best chance to hold on to control of the
House and take a majority in the Senate. These Republicans concede that Romney doesn’t stir
passion among the party faithful, but they say they fear that the other candidates might not just
lose, but sink the ticket altogether.
Should Santorum or Gingrich come from behind in the race for delegates and win the nomination,
Republican operatives with relationships in the House and Senate agree that the National
Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee would
adjust their pitch to donors. The committees would likely contend that the presidential race is a lost
cause and that Congressional campaigns constitute the only worthwhile investment of GOP money.
A GOP lobbyist predicted that the sales pitch would work. “The [Republican National Committee]
would be the third choice behind the NRSC and NRCC. Super PACs would divert everything to trying
to hold the House and win competitive Senate seats,” this Republican said.
Even if Romney remains on course to win the nomination and locks it up by the time of the last
primary in June, there is a chance that this could happen anyway, a GOP media consultant said. “Of
course this will be the case if Romney isn’t the nominee,” this consultant said. “But there is an
increasing anxiety that some donors would focus their money on the House and Senate because of a
feeling that a beaten, battered Romney can’t beat Obama anyway.”
This scenario has played out in the past.
In 1996, as it became clear that President Bill Clinton was on pace to defeat Sen. Bob Dole (Kan.),
Republicans turned their focus to Congressional races, spending heavily to ensure the GOP held the
House and the Senate. The party even ran on a message of divided government and urged voters to
choose Republicans downballot to maintain a check on Clinton.
The effort worked, but Republicans say they would prefer to avoid a reprisal. “The message would
be similar to the ’96 campaign of checks and balances. I have yet to encounter anyone who is willing
to celebrate that prospect, however,” the well-placed Republican said.
In the interim, the protracted Republican primary is splitting the attention of major donors,
particularly in states such as Florida, Indiana and Wisconsin, which have multiple competitive races
up and down the ticket.
According to a GOP fundraiser, some donors are “unsure” of where to invest, given the unsettled
nature of the White House contest and competing priorities at the Congressional level. House
Republicans have been selling their status as the only existing check on Obama and full Democratic
control of Washington, while Senate Republicans have been campaigning on a favorable playing
field that finds them four seats shy of controlling the chamber.
Republican donors are giving, as evidenced by the millions of dollars raised by the various
Republican third-party groups and the political action committees supporting the presidential
candidates, known as super PACs. But some Republican strategists who raise third-party money for
Congressional contests say the unsettled presidential picture has complicated their effort.
“Until many of these donors get closure on the nomination fight, they aren’t engaging in House and
Senate races with big checks,” one such Republican said.
For the GOP, It’s Back to the Future
March 9, 2012, 3:17 PM
Given the protracted battle for the Republican presidential nomination and the regional, ideological
and political underpinnings of the four remaining candidates, one might think the GOP is engaged in
a pitched battle for the direction, future and soul of the party.
Except it’s not — at least not as a matter of policy and generational leadership.
Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) represents the only attempt of any candidate to drag the Republican Party in
a distinctly different direction than that which has defined it at least since Ronald Reagan was
elected president in 1980. But Paul is not, and never has been, considered a possible winner of the
nomination. Of the three remaining candidates who are, or have been considered, viable at one time
or another — former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and
former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) — virtually nothing separates their plans for the country should
they win their party’s nod and defeat President Barack Obama in November. On matters of
domestic and fiscal policy — nothing; on matters of social policy — nothing; on matters of foreign
policy and national defense, again, nothing.
And so, they have been reduced to arguing over who was the better Republican 10 or more years
ago.
It’s been Romney’s moderate leanings during his 1994 Senate bid against the late Sen. Edward
Kennedy, or the health care law he implemented during his term as Massachusetts governor, which
ended in 2006; versus Gingrich’s ethical and leadership failings during his tenure as Speaker and a
Congressman, which ended in 1998, as well as the ideological flexibility he exhibited after he left
office and the questionable clients he advised as a consultant; versus then-Sen. Santorum’s support
for earmarks and occasional dalliance with organized labor, as well as his backing of moderate Sen.
Arlen Specter (Pa.), then a Republican, in a 2004 GOP primary against conservative Pat Toomey.
Sen. Jim DeMint, who it could be argued has his hand on the pulse of grass-roots conservatives and
tea party voters as much as any Republican on Capitol Hill, sounded sympathetic to this view of the
GOP’s 2012 nomination battle during a Wednesday interview to discuss where the race stands in
the aftermath of Super Tuesday. “I think it’s who you can trust — it really is who you can trust,” the
South Carolinian said the day after Republicans voted in 10 primary states. “There are not a lot of
distinctions between their messages, at least compared to Obama. They’re fighting out more style.”
Added DeMint: “I think America’s looking for who’s genuine, who’s telling the truth, who’s going to
do what they say they’re going to do.”
Super Tuesday Analysis: The Long Slog Continues
March 7, 2012, 3:27 PM
Several hours removed from the final Super Tuesday contest being called in Alaska for former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the long, drawn-out, momentum-less Republican presidential
primary campaign appears as protracted as ever.
Romney won six of the 10 contests, but only narrowly survived in Ohio with a 38 percent to 37
percent victory over former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) — and the results of the Buckeye State
campaign are shaping the political analysis of events. Romney could have delivered a symbolic
knock-out blow to Santorum with a victory in the realm of 4 points or more. But the tight outcome
there, combined with Santorum’s wins in North Dakota, Oklahoma and Tennessee have revived the
narrative — one somewhat quashed last week after Romney victories in Arizona and Michigan —
that Romney can’t close the deal and that at least one of his opponents is well-positioned for an
upset.
But despite this latest round of speculation, the fundamentals of the 2012 Republican presidential
primary, as they came into view following Romney’s resounding Florida victory in January, have not
changed. Romney remains the most likely candidate to garner the 1,144 delegates needed to clinch
the nomination and the right to face President Barack Obama in the fall. His weaknesses are wellknown and some remain as a concern for his prospects. He is not emotionally inspiring, is viewed
suspiciously by many movement conservatives and self-described very conservative voters and he
hasn’t been able to translate big victories in key states (New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan) into
momentum going forward, as have previous GOP frontrunners.
Yet his opponents have similar problems, all of which were on display on Super Tuesday and bode
particularly ill for them going forward. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich killed in Georgia, the state he
represented in Congress until the late 1990s, but it was his only victory since South Carolina. He
finished behind Romney in Oklahoma and Tennessee on Tuesday. As for Gingrich’s Georgia win, it
should be treated as an afterthought, no more significant than Romney’s win in Massachusetts, the
state where he served as governor from 2002 to 2006.
Santorum’s near miss in Ohio last night, as impressive as it was for a guy with a shoestring
campaign and no infrastructure or organization, speaks exactly to the former Senator’s glaring
weakness. Despite previous unexpected victories, first in Iowa and then in Colorado, Minnesota and
Missouri, he has not built a national presidential campaign organization capable of pivoting to the
general election and taking on the Obama machine, much less holding on to the double-digit lead in
the polls in Ohio against “weak” Romney that he acquired coming out of his Feb. 7 trifecta.
Santorum understandably loves to talk up his underdog effort against Romney. He has gained
traction with his claim that Romney’s victories are hollow — the result of having more money and a
deeper organization — and that the governor would lose in a fair fight. But politics isn’t fair, and
winning the presidency requires raising lots of money and building a sophisticated campaign
organization. This argument, while appealing to some Republicans unhappy with Romney, will not
work with voters in the general election, and Santorum’s talent for connecting emotionally with
some of the key voting blocs that will be targeted in the fall won’t matter if he doesn’t have the
money and organization to get his message out. Now is the time to build that foundation, and
Santorum has yet to demonstrate progress on this side of the ledger.
As Republican strategists Ed Rollins and Steve Schmidt told me for a story published Feb. 27, good
candidates alone do not win presidential campaigns. It also takes an effective campaign
organization that can run a national race.