Friday’s political round-up

January 13, 2006

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* This year’s gubernatorial race in Iowa is shaping up to be one of the more competitive in the country. A new Rasmussen poll shows U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle (R), the likely GOP candidate, with narrow to nonexistent leads over the Dems vying for the party’s nomination. Nussle is currently tied with Iowa Secretary of State Chet Culver (D), 40% to 40%, and holds a margin-of-error lead over former Economic Development Director Mike Blouin (39% to 34%) and Agriculture Secretary Patty Judge (40% to 36%). State Rep. Ed Fallon (D) is much further behind, trailing Nussle 42% to 27%.

* Tom DeLay faces three Republican primary opponents this year, but one of them is actually starting to be taken seriously by the GOP establishment. Tom Campbell, a lawyer in DeLay’s home town of Sugar Land, worked on the presidential campaigns of Bob Dole and the elder George Bush, whose administration appointed him general counsel to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Moreover, a former Harris County Republican Party official is running Campbell’s campaign against DeLay.

*Democratic officials in New York insisted that Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi (D), who appears ready to launch a primary campaign against state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) in the state’s gubernatorial race, disavow running as a Republican after reports surfaced that the GOP is wooing him. Yesterday, Suozzi was noncommittal. “I will always seek the Democratic nomination for any office I pursue,” he said. “But I have succeeded at governing and winning elections by appealing to Democrats, Republicans and independents alike so I am encouraged by the increasing interest being expressed from people across party lines.” Asked if Suozzi would rule out running as a Republican for governor, his spokesperson said he had nothing more to say.

* In the latest from the world of entertainment-meets-politics, country music star Tim McGraw told Esquire that he and his wife, Faith Hill, might be another celebrity couple hitting the political campaign trail. McGraw said he plans to run for governor of Tennessee — someday. “I just think as governor of the state, there would be a lot more opportunities to make some decisions and change some things…. I think it’s something I’d do well.” McGraw, it’s worth noting, is a Democrat.

* Election Day 2006 may still be over 10 months away, but we can already congratulate four House incumbents who are already slated to win in Texas. Now that the state’s filing deadline has passed, we see that Reps. Mike Conaway (R), Lloyd Doggett (D), Charlie Gonzalez (D), and Al Green (D) have no opposition in the March 7 primary and no major party opposition in the general election, which as a practical matter means they’ve already won.

But are those four in Texas just the result of GOP redistricting? The GOP had to give a few districts to the Dems, and the partisan redistricting scheme delegitimizes everyone it elects. Especially when it results in contests like these. Those Democrats do not deserve the office unopposed, they should earn it – just like the GOP politicians in other Texas districts should.

If that is, in fact, the case. I’m still curious though, is it?

  • But are those four in Texas just the result of GOP redistricting?

    Pretty much. Most of the Dem districts in Texas were much more “blue” than they were, by taking Dem areas out of Republican districts. It ensured that about 15 of members from the state delegation would be Dems, but hardly any others.

    they should earn it – just like the GOP politicians in other Texas districts should.

    Agreed.

    I like that even better than my Jon Bon Jovi for governor of New Jersey idea.

    Why not both? I’m thinking we might be able to put together some kind of Dem super-group.

  • That isn’t to say I think districts should always be drawn so that they are always competitive between Democrats and Republicans. That gives undue deference to the two parties as the only parties that matter, and ignores those ineffable qualities that unify and seperate communities, such as rural and urban communities having different values, and geography.

    Obviously, for example, San Francisco should not be carved up among rural majorities by drawing great isthmuses (sp?) into central urban districts, splitting neighborhoods apart into far-flung counties. What criteria should be used to form districts? Who should have the ability to make those decisions? Should legal experts be involved in what is obviously a political decision, such as California attempted? I don’t know. Off-topic but does anyone have any helpful insight or solutions?

  • Also off-topic, I hope you don’t mind, but I wanted to mention something that may be happening in Oregon politics soon. Though unrelated, the term “super-group” reminded me of something. A group of Democrats in Oregon want to split off into a third party. Of course they realize the great risk of backfiring that breaking away from the party represents (by electing Republicans in non-runoff elections,) they suggest allowing candidates to run with the support of multiple parties. Splinter groups can form from within a party and retain party support but also strengthen alternative parties. Moderates who disdain partisan rancor can look for candidates who are supported by both major parties. There’s some question about the constitutionality of this system, but what do you think of its viability?

  • Wouldn’t Tim be running against Democratic Governor Phil Bresden then? Anybody know if he’s planning on retiring?

    • Comments are closed.