Sen. Lamar Alexander and about a dozen supporters worked aggressively through Wednesday to shore up support for a top Senate GOP leadership post, seeking to downplay concerns about some of the Tennessee Republican’s centrist positions by emphasizing an ideology similar to that of his conservative rival.

Alexander’s main selling point is that, if elected as Senate Republican Conference chairman, he will craft an operation aimed at attracting independent voters who are sorely needed in the GOP’s uphill climb to retake the majority in the upper chamber in 2008.

“If you look up and down the line, they are very, very similar from the standpoint of past voting records,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). He added that Alexander would push a “conservative positive message” while advocating “thoughtful policy.”

Alexander made a similar point to reporters Tuesday.

As of Wednesday evening, Alexander appeared to have majority support within the 49-member conference to defeat Burr in Thursday morning’s election for chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, according to GOP aides and senators. Since such votes are held in secret, however, senators have the freedom to vote regardless of their previous commitments. Accordingly, Burr could pull off an upset victory.

Both sides continued to hold face-to-face meetings with senators throughout the day Wednesday. Burr’s backers denied that the two have similar conservative philosophies and argued that the first-term North Carolina senator would bring a fresh face and a reform-minded conservatism needed in the leadership team.

“This is a case between a moderate and a conservative, between an old bull and a clear reformer,” one GOP aide said.

Meanwhile, Alexander’s team worked aggressively to eliminate the possibility of a Burr upset, dispatching about a dozen senators to court wayward senators with whom they have established good relationships. “It’s all about relationships up here,” one GOP aide said.

“If it is Lamar, he is a very solid political operative and he has a history of crafting messages that appeal to independents,” said Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), a supporter of Alexander’s bid.

Alexander’s backers cite his strategy in crafting a message in Corker’s successful 2006 Senate bid, when he won both the independent and conservative votes over former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.). That was the lone open Senate race the Republicans won last year.

Hanging over Alexander’s bid is the perception that some of his more centrist positions would undermine his ability to attract conservatives in a tough electoral environment in 2008. His supporters have tried to counter that perception by arguing that Alexander and Burr have common conservative philosophies.

For their part, Burr backers argue that the North Carolina Republican would sharpen the conservative message as chairman, most notably on federal spending issues.    

Since Alexander took office in 2003, he voted with President Bush 98 percent of the time in 2003 and 2004, 88 percent in 2005, and 93 percent in 2006, according to a Congressional Quarterly voting study. From 2003 to 2006, he voted with the Republican Party 98 percent, 95 percent, 92 and 94 percent of the time, respectively.

Burr has similar numbers. He supported Bush 88 percent and 89 percent of the time in 2005 and 2006, respectively, and voted with the Republican Party 94 percent and 95 percent of the time in those years, according to CQ. While serving in the House, in 2004 and 2003, Burr voted with Bush 79 percent and 96 percent of the time, respectively, and with the party 92 and 94 percent in each of those two years.

In the 110th Congress, Burr has voted with the Republican Party 89 percent of the time compared with Alexander’s 87 percent, according to a Washington Post database.

But the two have diverged on a number of key votes in this session. Alexander voted for passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, while Burr voted against it. Alexander supported the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriations bill, while Burr voted against it.

Similarly, Burr voted against a Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, which Alexander backed.

Unlike some of the chamber’s ardent fiscal conservatives, however, the two voted in favor of the rest of the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills that have passed the Senate. Both voted against a Democratic budget resolution.

On last summer’s immigration overhaul measure, Alexander voted against proceeding to the bill, while Burr voted to proceed to debate. Both eventually voted to block the measure, but Burr voted against an amendment by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to strike a central piece of the bill that would have created a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s illegal immigrants. Alexander voted for that amendment.

On Iraq, both have been opposed to setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from the war. But Alexander has sought a compromise, pushing for a bill that would make the Iraq Study Group recommendations official U.S. policy and require Bush to report to Congress on his troop redeployment plans. No action has been taken on that measure.

Both senators voted for a bill to expand stem cell research. Alexander voted for passage of the Senate’s energy bill this year, which Burr opposed.

Alexander joined most of his Republican colleagues in voting to override the president’s veto of a water resources bill, whereas Burr joined his fiscal conservative colleagues who were concerned about the level of spending authorized in the measure for water projects.

Similarly, Burr was angry about the final language included in the ethics and lobbying bill aimed at reforming earmarking. He voted against the bill, saying the language was too weak, while Alexander supported it.

The two have also cast votes that have angered conservatives. For instance, they both voted for a 2003 bill that created a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

It is unclear how much of a factor these votes will play when senators cast their votes on Thursday.
Sen. John Ensign (Nev.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he has not made his decision yet, but noted that Alexander has “a very conservative voting record.”

“Leadership races are terrible because they make you choose between your family members,” Ensign said. “Nobody likes leadership races.”