Tuesday’s political round-up

January 10, 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:

* Harris Miller, up until recently the president of the Information Technology Association of America, officially announced yesterday that he will take on Sen. George Allen (R) in Virginia’s Senate election. Miller hinted that Allen’s presidential ambitions will be a key campaign issue: “I’m committing to serve six years in the Senate. Clearly, George Allen has other things on his mind,” Miller said. “I don’t think there are too many people in New Hampshire who can vote for him in November.”

* After receiving a surprisingly strong response in a Pennsylvania Republican Party caucus vote recently, former football player Lynn Swann (R) has helped push one of his gubernatorial rivals out of the race. State Sen. Jeffrey Piccola (R), who’s been running third in state polls, ended his struggling campaign. Former Lt. Gov. William Scranton (R) remains as Swann’s only primary opponent.

* Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) starts off her re-election year with an enormous lead over Barbara Ann Radnofsky (D), ahead 64% to 25%.

* Speaking of Texas, now that this year’s gubernatorial campaign is a four-way race, the polls show no one getting a majority. A new Rasmussen poll show Gov. Rick Perry (R) ahead with 40% support, followed by Carole Keeton Strayhorn (I) with 21%, Chris Bell (D) at 14%, and Kinky Friedman (I) not far behind with 12%.

* Hoping to put an end to speculation about possible presidential aspirations, Al Gore continues to tell people that he really isn’t going to run. Appearing at a recent conservative gathering to discuss global warming, Gore “kept talking about himself as a recovering politician.” Grover Norquist, who hosted Gore’s remarks, said, “He’s not running for office.”

I just had to check to make sure that Grove Norquist was really Grover Norquist, and it is. Now, what the hell was the man who’s obsessed with making up violent analogies (“drown it in a bathtub”) doing in the same room with Al Gore?

  • Rian – I think that you have it backwards. I think that Gore has too much class to be in the same room with Norquist.

  • I just had to check to make sure that Grove Norquist was really Grover Norquist, and it is.

    Yep, that was a typo. It’s fixed.

    I think that Gore has too much class to be in the same room with Norquist.

    On the surface, that’s certainly true, but context matters here. Norquist hosts the biggest meetings of conservative leaders and thinkers in DC. Gore believes global warming should be a non-partisan, non-ideological issue and is anxious to make his case to conservatives who may have heard misinformation. There’s no better way to make the reality-based case than to go to the belly of the beast, which in this case, is Norquist’s weekly meeting.

    I could see why someone would be disappointed with Gore, but in a sense, I admire his courage and convictions. No one in that room liked him or voted for him, but he put all of that aside to do a professional, first-class presenation on a pressing issue. He answered all of their questions, too. I wouldn’t interpret this at all as Gore offering Norquist respect or credence, but rather a matter of convenience. Gore wanted to talk to leading right wingers and Norquist made it happen.

  • Grover Norquist is a rat. Believe nothing that he says.

    I very much hope that the sinking ship Abramoff takes Norquist down with it.

  • Not just a rat, Norquist is an acrimonious, divisive ideologue, so I’m suprised that he wanted anything to do with Gore, and even allowed Gore in the door. Gore should be commended for trying to reach across the aisle, particularly by going all the way into Norquist’s realm. But why did Norquist permit it? How did the meeting go? Did they throw their shoes at him? Rotten fruit? I’d be very interested in knowing what happened there.

  • My question is what the hell do they have on Al Gore?

    If global warming is so important, and if he believes all the stuff he says he does, then why would he step aside and not run? He would take the Democratic nomination easily. A lot of Americans would vote for him to “make up” for voting for Bush or Nader. His predictions have come true on many many levels.

    This makes no sense unless…

  • He would take the Democratic nomination easily.

    I disagree with this statement. It is by no means certain he’d win the Dem nomination. For starters, his previous choice of running mate certainly puts his candidacy in question for me.

  • Don’t get me wrong, I’m an Al Gore fan, but why do some of us want so badly to put the same guys up again, especially when the last time they were there they lost? (I know, I know, he got the most votes, but who ended up President?)

    Gore is too smart to be the Presidential figure-head and I think he is more valuable to the world, especially the third world if he can work in the background.

  • I would hope no one would be disappointed in Gore for “honoring” Norquist with his presence (I wont call him by his first name. That was my favorite Sesame Street character, and I wont let the Rethug ruin it!)

    All of us who (correctly) slam Dumbya for being bubble boy should salute Gore for having the guts to go into the middle of enemy territory to plead his case. He had to know that the odds were horrible, that he would likely face hostility and derision, but he went anyway and – who knows? – maybe move even a couple of them, or showed them D’s aren’t as worthless as the Rethug leaders always say. Good for Al.

  • I guess that I have become so partisan over the last couple of years that I had forgotten about that time honored tradition called statesmanship that we used to have pre-Bush.

    Doubtful – What you said about Gore being more valuable doing other things really resonated with me. It makes me remember that we all have a part to play, and not everyone needs to be the top dog to make a difference.

    • Comments are closed.