TX-Sen: John Sharp to run for Hutchison seat - Democratic Source
This is fairly good news: former Texas State Comptroller John Sharp, one of the last Democrats to win statewide office in Texas and the Democrat who came closest to doing so in the last decade, intends to run for the United States Senate.
He will run for the seat currently held by Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is not expected to seek another term, and is expected to run for Governor of Texas in 2010.
That means the election could be held in 2012 (if Hutchison finishes out her term), in 2010 (if she wins the Governorship), or even as early as next year (if she resigns from the Senate to run for governor).
“I will be a candidate whether the election is in 2012 or any time before then,” said Sharp, who received the highest percentage of votes statewide of any Democrat during the past decade. “Texans face tough challenges that call for innovative solutions, and that’s what our campaign is all about.”
Sharp, 58, said he is forgoing the step of forming an exploratory committee and will file the required papers on January 1 so that he can begin raising money and campaigning across the state with the dawn of the new year.
After winning his last election as Comptroller, Sharp ran for lieutenant governor in 1998 and nearly won. He ran again in 2002 and received more votes than any other Democrat did statewide.
He’s a moderate to conservative Democrat, but one who could actually win statewide in Texas - he’s one of two high-profile potential candidates for this seat, along with Houston Mayor Bill White.
White clearly wants to run for something in 2010; the question is whether he’ll run for Senate (taking on Sharp in the primary), or for Governor (most likely taking on Hutchison in the general). Sharp’s entry may well have been timed to scare off White, but White would probably still be better off running for Senate as opposed to Governor. Hutchison is the most popular politician in Texas, and she will very likely win the governorship no matter who her opponent is.
But regardless of what White does, the entry of Sharp means that we’ll have a very, very serious Democratic candidate in what is likely to be an open-seat election sometime between now and 2012. That’s great news in and of itself, and it means that the party is as aggressive as ever coming out of the 2008 elections.
Credit:
Read more here at this outstanding news source.
The Senate is the center of the drama - Political News
What’s going to cause more drama in the Senate next week?
The GOP filibuster of Al Franken?:
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) threatened Friday to filibuster any attempt to seat Democratic Minnesota Senate candidate Al Franken next week.The newly minted National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman said he had not whipped votes in the GOP caucus, but added that he could not imagine any members defecting and seating Franken without a certificate of election.
Or the effort to keep Roland Burris out of the chamber?:
The U.S. Senate’s sergeant at arms says he doesn’t expect trouble when Roland Burris shows up to be sworn in as President-elect Barack Obama’s successor on Tuesday.The sergeant at arms, Terrence Gainer, said he has known Burris for years. Gainer said in a telephone interview: ”He is a good man. He plays by the rules.”
Jane Hamsher explains how the these two situations are inter-related. It’s not pretty:
The Republicans have been planning to block Franken for some time, and Reid should have factored that in when he drew up his Burris game plan. Until Reid announced he’d refuse to seat Burris because he didn’t have a certificate, the Dems had an argument that the Senate Republicans were just playing politics.Now they’re stuck trying to explain the double standard for Franken and Burris.
Great. The Senate is going to be the battleground. If change is going to happen, it has to get through that body. None of what’s happening now bodes well for the rest of the session.
The drama should be over passing the stimulus package, considering the precarious state of our economy. This is a time for leadership, not gamesmanship.
Credit:
Read more here at this outstanding news source.
Use Remaining Bailout Funds for Federal Tax Holiday, Republican Says - Today in Politics
The remaining $350 billion in federal bailout funds should be used to give taxpayers a two-month income tax and FICA (Social Security) tax holiday, says Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas).
Credit:
Read more here at this outstanding news source.
Movement Today Within The Ranks Of House Republicans Reveals A Potentially Road Blocking Amendment.
Movement Today Within The Ranks Of House Republicans Reveals a Potentially Road Blocking Amendment.
(Pelosi Opposing) The Amendment would trim the “Bailout” money to an initial $250 billion and a requirement that spending more than $250 billion needs the approval of Congress. (See Below)
As Of 8:00 PM the Votes in The House Are Not Lined Up for passage tomorrow. It will be a long night. The LaTourette/Bachus Republican Caucus faction Amendment has real merit as review and updating could come after the election, even earlier than November 17 as presently envisioned, if deemed necessary by events.
People’s Speak Out at U.S. Capitol Building | says “Bailout the people, not the banks” (Story and Photos Here)
http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_homepage
Some House Republicans want ‘pork’ removed from bailout bill
WASHINGTON — Take the “pork” out of the bailout bill before it gets a final House vote.
That was the demand this afternoon at a Capitol Hill news conference from a group of House Republicans, including central-Ohio Reps. David Hobson of Springfield and Pat Tiberi of Genoa Township, and Rep. Steven C. LaTourette of Bainbridge Township near Cleveland.
Tiberi and LaTourette voted against the initial House bill that went down to defeat Monday, causing a massive one-day stock market plunge as investors reacted to the prospect of the failure of the proposed $700 billion rescue package to relieve financial institutions of huge amounts of bad debt.
Both of them have indicated that they are leaning to voting for the revised Senate version expected to come to a vote in the House on Friday, but LaTourette said today that he is prepared to vote no again if the Senate bill isn’t stripped of a series of what he considers pork-barrel tax provisions.
A group of tax breaks were added to the bill in the hopes of attracting more House votes, particularly among Republicans. Most of them breaks extend business tax breaks about to expire, and are popular provisions.
But LaTourette, Hobson, Tiberi and other House GOP critics say that senators also put in new, targeted tax breaks.
“I am a no” unless those tax breaks are taken out, LaTourette said at the news conference. “The bill deserves to be a clean bill.”
Tiberi wasn’t at the news conference because he was still on his way back to Washington, but he too has signed on to the attempt to force a vote in the House on an amendment stripping the rescue bill of some of its tax provisions.
Hobson voted for the initial House bill but said in an interview before the news conference that he is now withholding his vote on the Senate version pending the outcome of the tax-break fight.
At the news conference, Hobson called some of the tax breaks inserted into the Senate an “outrage.”
Three examples of pork-barrel tax breaks listed by Hobson are: an economic-development credit to American Samoan businesses; a $10,000 tax credit for training of mine rescue-team members; and 50-percent immediate expensing for extra underground mine-safety equipment.
Ironically, Hobson is known as a proponent of congressional set-asides — which critics call pork — in the form of earmarked projects assigned to congressional districts by Hobson and other members of the House Appropriations Committee.
But Hobson said that in addition to the tax breaks that just need to be extended, there is a long list of provisions that have not been vetted in hearings. The appropriations committee takes the time to study earmarks and make sure they are “responsible” and “sound,” Hobson said.
When the House takes up the Senate bill, however, it might not be able to consider amendments.
Hobson refused to say whether he would still vote yes if the attempt to remove some of the tax provisions he considers pork fails. That wouldn’t give him much of a bargaining position, Hobson said.
Hobson and the other House Republicans trying to strip some of the tax provisions say that on the whole, the Senate version of the bill is better than the initial House version. They cited such provisions as increasing the maximum federally insured bank deposit to $250,000 from $100,000 and not forcing banks to write down assets whose value drops on paper but otherwise are debts in good standing.
Still, Hobson said he is hoping that other lawmakers who voted yes the first time around will be as mad as he is about the targeted tax breaks inserted by the Senate.
LaTourette said the group of House Republicans — about a dozen were at the news conference — reached out to Democrats, but none signed on to their amendment.
In addition to the removal of some tax breaks, the amendment also proposes to put more restrictions on how much and when the Treasury secretary could spend the $700 billion to buy up banks’ bad debt. The group of House Republicans wants a requirement that spending more than $250 billion needs the approval of Congress. The Senate version allows more to be spent unless Congress vetoes the move.
Obama increases lead in Ohio | Economy top issue, Quinnipiac poll finds
Dragged down by the Wall Street mess, a middling debate performance and growing concerns about his running mate, Republican John McCain is falling further behind in Ohio and two other key states, a poll unveiled yesterday shows.
Democrat Barack Obama has opened up a lead of 50 percent to 42 percent in the Buckeye State in a Quinnipiac University survey taken after Friday’s debate between the two senators. That’s a point more than his pre-debate margin and 3 points more than his edge in the Connecticut university’s poll released Sept. 11.
Obama also has stretched his lead to 15 points in Pennsylvania (up 9 from before the debate) and 8 in Florida (up 2).
Quinnipiac takes polls in the three states because no presidential candidate since 1960 has won without winning at least two of them.
Two other unrelated polls released yesterday also show Obama expanding his lead over McCain.
“It’s the economy, the economy, the economy,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
“The issue that has come to the fore is Obama’s best issue and the numbers show that. Voters link McCain to (President) Bush, fairly or unfairly, especially on the economy. Anything that worries them about the economy is good for Obama.”
Bush’s approval rating in Ohio is now 24 percent.
Ohio voters rate Obama’s debate performance as better than McCain’s; they deem Obama’s efforts to fix the Wall Street mess as more helpful than McCain’s; and they give higher favorability ratings to Obama’s running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, than McCain’s, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Currently, exactly as many Ohioans view Palin unfavorably as favorably, a sharp decline in the past three weeks. Her support among white women especially has dropped, Brown noted — adding that all could change after tonight’s vice presidential debate.
Although details of the proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout shifted throughout the polling period, Ohioans say they oppose the plan by almost 20 percentage points.
Although Obama wins higher marks in Ohio as the candidate better able to handle the economy and the energy crisis, McCain wins across the board on foreign-policy issues, from the war in Iraq, to Israel-Iran relations, to dealing with Russia, to a possible terrorist attack in the U.S.
“What people care about right now is Wall Street and that mess,” Brown said. “It focuses the agenda. And that works to Sen. Obama’s benefit.
“If national security became front and center, that would help Sen. McCain’s campaign.”
Four demographic keys to Obama’s lead: He has pulled even among male voters while maintaining a 14-point lead among women; he leads by 4 points among independents; he is losing among white, born-again evangelicals by only 2-to-1, far better than Democrats did in 2004; and he virtually has eliminated the party loyalty gap, losing only 12 percent of Democrats to McCain, who is losing 10 percent of Republicans to Obama.
In a national Associated Press-GfK poll released yesterday, Obama has surged to a 7-point lead over McCain.
In that poll, likely voters back Obama 48 percent to McCain’s 41 percent, a dramatic shift from an AP-GfK survey that gave the Republican a slight edge nearly three weeks ago, before Wall Street collapsed and sent ripples across worldwide markets.
Obama leads McCain nationally 46 percent to 42 percent in a new Ipsos-McClatchy poll.
Obama’s 4-point lead shows the steady if small gains he has made in that poll since Labor Day. Over four weekly surveys, he has gone from being down by 1 point to tied, up by 1 point and now up by 4.
The Quinnipiac University poll is at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/sw10012008.doc.
Second House Vote on Bailout Hinges on Whip Count, Hoyer Says
By Edward Epstein, Lydia Gensheimer and Benton Ives, CQ Staff
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said leaders of both parties are working hard to pass revised financial bailout legislation Friday. But he warned he will not call up the bill until that outcome is assured.
“I have to be pretty confident we have the votes to pass this before I put it on the floor,” Hoyer told reporters Thursday. House leaders do not want to risk a second defeat of the plan, which could touch off a panic in financial markets.
He said he hoped for passage Friday. “I think there’s a good prospect of getting this done,” Hoyer said.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., called the revised bill “much improved,” and said, “We’re working hard to pass it.”
On Monday, Sept. 29, the House rejected, 205-228, the original version of the bill (HR 3997).
Negotiators went back to the drawing board and added an increase in Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. coverage for bank accounts to $250,000 per account, from $100,000. The Senate last night called up a House-passed mental health parity bill (HR 1424) and attached the modified bailout package and extensions of expired or expiring tax breaks. The Senate passed the new package by 74-25, with majorities of both parties backing the proposal.
(INSERT: Email message: Do people realize that what the Senate passed yesterday as the ostensible Wall St. bailout bill is actually HR 1424, the “Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act” which the Senate used as a vehicle for bailout provisions? This bill has been kicking around Congress since March with a whole weird mixture of funding stuff, and the Senate used it to run a vote on a Goldman Sachs welfare payment that can bankrupt the nation into the hands of Henry Paulson’s very good friends in China. Somebody needs to widely publicize the irony that Paul Wellstone’s name and the addiction concept are the basis for perpetuating our nation’s most serious addiction - government support of corporate greed. Take a look at the history and content of HR 1424. It is an amazing exhibit of black humor. Gary Higginbottom: Portland, Maine)
Get the ImpeachmentWatch Day 115 (2008-10-02) « Impeach widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox!
Hoyer said that he still hopes the House can take up an extension of unemployment benefits for workers whose benefits will expire this month. He said “we have to get agreement” with Republicans, adding “and it would be separate from the bailout.”
President Bush again urged Congress to complete action quickly on the financial rescue package. He met with business representatives at the White House and warned of the consequences of the credit squeeze for the Main Street economy.
Bush said the Senate-passed bill “is the bill that has the best chance of providing credit, providing liquidity” to the financial system and the broader economy.
Winning Over Votes
Hoyer said he didn’t know if Democrats could produce more than the 140 votes they mustered for first bailout bill on Monday. He stressed it is up to Republicans to provide the votes needed for passage. Only 65 Republicans voted for the plan on Sept. 29, while 133 opposed it.
“We expect there to be many more Republican votes for this to pass,” he said. “We need a significantly greater number of Republicans. I don’t want to put a number on it.”
Although the Senate included tax break extensions without full offsets to pay for them, Hoyer said he doubted that move would have much impact on the Democratic vote count, even where fiscally conservative Blue Dogs are concerned.
First posted Oct. 2, 2008 12:38 p.m.
Page: Next
Some House ‘no’ votes turning to ‘yes’ on bailout
Democratic and Republican leaders worked over wayward colleagues wherever they could find them.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, said there was a “good prospect” of approving the measure but stopped short of predicting passage — or even promising a vote. Nonetheless, the vote was expected on Friday. “I’m going to be pretty confident that we have sufficient votes to pass this before we put it on the floor,” Hoyer said.
The top Republican vote-counter, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, did predict the measure would be approved.
Minds were changing in both parties in favor of the much-maligned measure, which would let the government spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets from troubled financial institutions. If the plan works, advocates say, that would allow frozen credit to begin flowing again and prevent a serious recession.
GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, said she was switching her “no” vote to a “yes” after the Senate added some $110 million in tax breaks and other sweeteners before approving the measure Wednesday night.
“Monday what we had was a bailout for Wall Street firms and not much relief for taxpayers and hard-hit families. Now we have an economic rescue package,” Ros-Lehtinen told The Associated Press.
Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, another of the 133 House Republicans who joined 95 Democrats Monday to reject the measure, also announced he was now onboard.Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri was switching, too, said spokesman Danny Rotert, declaring, “America feels differently today than it did on Friday about this bill.”
Emboldened by the feverish bidding for votes, other members of both parties were demanding substantial changes to the legislation before they would vote for it. A group of Republican opponents indicated they’d back it if the price tag were slashed to $250 billion and several special tax breaks added by the Senate were removed. Democrats wanted to add a way to pay for the bailout and more help for homeowners staring at foreclosure.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said no, such revisions were impossible because they would slow the measure’s enactment and further shake markets.
“I don’t think that any changes here will do what we need to do, which is right now to send a message of confidence to the markets that Congress will act,” she said.
CBS News - Sep 29 8:15 AM
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who want from being inside the negotiations to watching on the side, is now coordinating House Republican speeches on the floor. He had come out opposed to the bailout deal negotiated by congressional leaders. Now, he’s leaning yes
Blunt’s count was 10 short
By Jackie Kucinich
Posted: 09/29/08 08:09 PM [ET]
When Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) went to the floor on Monday, he anticipated that 75 House Republicans would vote for the revamped financial rescue package.
But only 65 voted for it.
Had 75 voted yes, the rescue plan would have been within striking distance of passing the lower chamber.
Needing a dozen members to change their minds, Democratic leaders gaveled the vote to a close in a stunning development that shook the Capitol and Wall Street.
One hundred thirty-three of 198 voting Republican lawmakers joined 95 Democrats to reject the $700 billion bill that a bipartisan group of leaders from both chambers crafted over the weekend.
The Republican side of the House was not frenzied during the unsuccessful vote, despite intense lobbying from President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Unlike the three-hour vote on the 2003 Medicare drug bill, House Republican leaders did not put much pressure on their rank-and-file members to back the rescue package.
However, sources said that Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was told that his committee seat hung in the balance if he chose to vote against the bill. Bachus voted yes, calling it one of the most difficult votes he has ever cast.
When Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) asked Blunt on the House floor if he had five members who would switch, Blunt said he did, but he did not have the time to deliver them.
“This was one of those situations where nobody really wanted to do it on either side,” Blunt said on Monday.
All GOP leadership officials voted for the bill, except for Reps. Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) and John Carter (Texas). But leaders didn’t strongly sell the controversial legislation.
During a closed-door meeting of members on Sunday night, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) referred to the package crafted by House and Senate leaders as a “crap sandwich” but said it was necessary to vote for it to save the economy from a potentially crippling economic crisis. During his floor speech on Monday, Boehner called the bill “awful” but necessary.
Conference politics also ran amok during the week as members jockeyed for position in anticipation of leadership races for the next Congress.
Leadership officials blasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for the failure of the bill, claiming her floor address was filled with partisan barbs and forced some Republicans to vote no.
But other Republicans disagreed strongly with that assertion, which was mocked by Democrats as false and petty.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said the GOP leadership comments were untrue, asserting that House Republicans voted against the bill because of its contents.
“We’re not babies who suck our thumbs,” Bachmann said at a press conference after the vote.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee who has triggered speculation that he will mount a leadership bid, was one of the first members to publicly reject the revised rescue plan.
Hensarling appeared at the press conference with Bachmann, as well as other Republicans who voted no, including Reps. Scott Garrett (N.J.), Steve King (Iowa), Trent Franks (Ariz.) and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.).
Behind closed doors, sources said Hensarling was uncompromising on the cost of the bailout, and that led to a tense exchange with House Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
Boehner saw even his closest allies reject his pleas to support the bill — including McCotter, Reps. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio), Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and freshman Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whom Boehner tapped earlier in the year to head up the Republican Platform Committee.
“Boehner understands,” McCotter said, adding that the GOP leader knew members would have to vote their conscience.
Meanwhile, several members of Blunt’s whip team also rejected the bill.
Many of the top GOP committee members voted yes. Ranking members who backed the measure included Reps. Bachus, Tom Davis (Va.), David Dreier (Calif.), Vernon Ehlers (Mich.), Pete King (N.Y.), Jerry Lewis (Calif.), Jim McCrery (La.), Buck McKeon (Calif.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.).
Keep This In Mind Tonight!
Vice Presidential Succession Is Not So Unusual
By ALeonard
Nixon’s second term after Nixon resigned rather than face an impeachment trial in the Senate in 1974. Thus, a Vice President was suddenly called into service as President on average once every twenty years during the twentieth century. …
Leonard Link - http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/
All Eyes Turn To Senate Prospects In Texas - Today in Politics
Some interesting happenings in my homestate. Promoted by Texas Nate
With former Texas Comptroller John Sharp’s announcement today that he is in the race for the seat that U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is expected to abandon as early as this June to pursue her run for governor, all eyes are turning to Texas and the prospects of Democrats picking up another U.S. Senate seat between election cycles.
Since 2006, speculation has mounted that Hutchison would abandon her safe senate seat to take on Governor Rick Perry in the 2010 GOP Primary for Governor. Hutchison toyed with the idea of making a similar run in 2002 and 2006 and ultimately made neither race. This time, however, she seems to be making the race for real, having formally formed an exploratory committee and populated it with a million dollars from her bloated campaign warchest.
Most politicos believe that Hutchison will abandon her seat in June of 2009–after the 81st Session of the Texas Legislature concludes and when statewide campaigns traditionally kick off. Hutchison, however has debunked this by saying she does not intend to step down before the end of 2009. It is possible, but not likely, that Hutchison could hold her Senate seat through the 2010 GOP Primary and not resign until after she wins the primary (if she does) or until after she wins a general election. There is actually precedent in Texas History for a sitting U.S. Senator holding the seat until the day they took office to become governor. There has been no indication from the Hutchison camp, however, that she would hold on to the seat if she was unsuccessful in the governor’s race, or that she would stay in office beyond 2009.
Either way, the seat will be up for grabs, be it in 2009, 2010, or–worst case scinario–in 2012 when her term expires.
There are a lot of factors to consider when it comes to making this race a “pick up” for Democrats: whether the seat is decided in a special election or is on the ballot in 2010 (i.e., when Perry decides to set the election); who Perry appoints as a placeholder if Hutchison does resign; and who gets in the race.
Right now, the only really sure thing is that Sharp is in. Hutchison, for all of her posturing, could, as she has in the past, wuss out of a face-to-face primary against Perry. Republican leaders in Texas are already sounding alarm bells that such a vicious and well-moneyed primary could cause a schism in the party and endanger the GOP’s general election chances further.
An Election, But When?
This all depends upon Hutchison and the timing of her resignation. Under Texas law, there are several options that exist with regard to placeholder nominations and elections in such cases. If Hutchison submits her resignation on or before January 1 of an even-numbered (general election) year and on or before the 62nd day before the primary election, the unexpired term will be on the ballot for the next general election. Whether or not a party primary would come in to play would further depend upon the date of the resignation and require a lengthy trek into Texas Election Law to explain how, if the primary does not come into play, the party nominees are determined (by nominating at the state convention or the State Democratic Executive Committee).
If Hutchison resigns during in an odd-numbered year, a special election will be called just as in any other instance. The same would be true if she resigned after the 62nd day before the primary in an even-numbered election year.
Perry gets to appoint someone to fill the vacancy if and only if the vacancy exists or will exist while Congress is in session. Given the business before congress, it is very unlikely that Congress will not be in session at some point while the seat is vacant pending a special election, meaning Perry will get to appoint a placeholder.
Special Election versus General Election
If the timing of a resignation triggers a special election, it is literally a free-for-all.
People from any political party can file (not just R’s and D’s, actually). In previous Special Elections for U.S. Senate in Texas, as many as 71 candidates have filed; in 1992, when Hutchison first won the seat in a special election, 24 candidates were on the ballot. In such instances, if no candidate garners in excess of 50 percent of the vote, the top two vote-getters (regardless of party affiliation) wind up in a runoff.
If the timing of the resignation allows the race to be put on the next general election ballot, the race is slated for the next available general election, then typical party primary rules would apply depending upon the timing of the resignation (see above), with Republicans and Democrats holding separate primaries (and the Libertarian Party nominating their candidate–no other parties presently have ready ballot access in Texas) and the victors in those races going on to the general election.
In all honesty, there probably is not one or the other of these methods that favors Democrats over Republicans significantly. To some degree, however, having the election to name Hutchison’s successor on the 2010 ballot along with the governor’s race and a host of statewide posts probably favors Democrats because the eventual candidate will benefit from coordinated campaign efforts in the state’s largest urban counties. However, a resignation timed to trigger putting the post on the 2010 ballot would also give whomever Perry appoints to the seat an advantage of having been in the Senate longer.
A Special Election could favor Democrats depending upon when it is called. If it is called to coincide with, say, a constitutional amendment election in late 2009, that would be particularly bad if there was a constitutional amendment which was controversial and drew out a large number of conservative voters. If it is called to coincide with a so-called uniform election date when mayoral races and city council races are on the ballot, it could be beneficial for Democrats if there are marquee candidates in large municipalities with Democratic constituencies running (municipal races in Texas are, however, non-partisan).
Who Gets Appointed?
There is no question the placeholder will be a Republican. Here are some of Perry’s options with regard to an appointment:
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. This is the most likely option–no matter when Hutchison resigns. Why? Because Perry can’t afford Dewhurst in a GOP Primary for Governor in 2010–with or without Kay Bailey Hutchison. Plus, Dewhurst’s massive personal fortune would help him hold the seat provided he makes it to a runoff if Hutchison’s resignation triggers a special election. That isn’t a sure thing, though, given there could be as many as 20 candidates jump into the eventual special election race. On the downside, Dewhurst is presently under investigation as a result of his personal financial disclosure filings which may be in violation of state law. Assuming that investigation doesn’t result in criminal charges, Perry will likely let Dwhurst sink or swim on his own.
Railroad Commissioner Michael L. Williams. One advantage he has is that he doesn’t have a legislative record he can be attacked on–just the fact that he is in the pocket of the petrochemical industry. Another advantage is that it makes a Republican ticket look more diverse (important if Perry sets a special election to coincide with the 2010 November General Election).
Disadvantages include that Williams brings a special set of negatives
to the table. Unlike any other potential pick, Williams is the only candidate who could be subjected to TV attack ads that accuse him of leading a state agency and being asleep at the wheel while people blew up in their homes. When posed in contrast to other candidates simply voting on a financial industry bailout…well, you get the idea.
State Senator Florence Shapiro (R-Plano). Shapiro is essentially the favorite right now–but not for an appointment, rather as the GOP standardbearer in an election. Don’t look for Shapiro to get the appointment, though. However, moderately conservative Republican women (and some Republican women in general) will demand that Perry replace Hutchison with another woman. If that becomes a groundswell, look for Shapiro to be going head-to-head in the nomination process against Elizabeth Ames Jones.
Elizabeh Ames Jones. Her big chance here comes if Perry wants to appoint someone who will under no circumstances have a chance at winning the seat. Although this former interior decorator spent time in the Legislature, she lacks any substantive public policy background that makes her qualified enough to hold the appointment–unless as a placeholder that Perry wants to lose. She does, however, have a decent sized campaign warchest.
Henry Bonillia. The former Republican Congressman from San Antonio is reportedly on several GOP short lists. Some, however, would like to see Bonillia run only if he agrees no to run in the special election. Others see him as another option for diversity for the Party.
Harris County Tax Assessor Paul Bettencourt. Not likely, but he may be pushed by a lot of he anti-tax wingnut crowd. Of course, he just resigned, and there could be some embarassing lawsuits and Department of Justice actions that will tarnish his appeal.
State Sen. Dan Patrick. Another person Perry can appoint if he doesn’t want the appointee to win. This is, however, an appointment that would keep Patrick off Perry’s heels in the governor’s race (or off the heels of a more well-established GOP officeholder for a down-ballot statewide race) and appease he right wing.
Congressman Joe Barton. He’s already run unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in he 1992 Special Election that gave Hutchison he post. The problem with Baron, though, is that he is the “past” of a Texas Republican Party that is looking for new faces. He’s also go a long Congressional record opponents can seriously attack.
Congressman Jeb Hensarling. The Dallas Congressman is widely viewed–in Texas and nationally–as a rising conservative star. While he’s a lock to run in a special election, don’t look for him to get the appointment. Why? Because it would create a special election in a district that has a significant number of voters in Dallas County. There is some chance, and it isn’t as remote as some think–that a Democrat could pick up this seat in a special election in an election year when Dallas County is running a major coordinated campaign effort if rural counties are able to up their Democratic numbers even a tad.
Who Will Run For Hutchison’s Seat?
Again, timing is a factor. But you can probably take everyone from the list above and throw them into this mix on the Republican side.
However, there are some names who would be more likely to run than not: Michael L. Williams, Joe Barton, Jeb Hensarling, and Dewhurst. Ames Jones has already signaled her intentions to seek the seat, and Shapiro has already formed an exploratory committee and is essentially a lock to run. Williams, however, could opt to run for Lt. Governor or Attorney General if he doesn’t want to subject himself to an excessively brutal primary. The other two wouldn’t really be viable candidates for AG, and Ames Jones is not a viable candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
As for Democrats, John Sharp is, as we previously noted, a sure thing. Sharp has previously held statewide office, most recently as Texas Comptroller. He will have the cash, institutional support, and grassroots support to make the run. Plus, although more progressive than potential opponents like White, he has bi-partisan appeal which is necessary at this juncture to win in Texas–especially since a statewide victory will require inroads in conservative East and West Texas in order to boost expectedly blue numbers from the state’s major urban metros.
As for the rest, none, aside from White, are particularly well-known statewide as Texas Democrats’ bench remains sparse since the party has been out of power statewide since the 1990s and hasn’t controlled either chamber of the legislature since 2003.
Houston Mayor Bill White seems to be toying with the idea of running for Hutchison’s seat, although he could decide to seek the governorship–something that people view as more likely. If there is a 2009 special election, White may throw his hat into the ring if for no other reason than to raise his name idea for a run for the governorship. It seems very doubtful, however, that White would beat Sharp in a Democratic Primary race if the resignation was timed to trigger one. And, in a special election free-for-all, he would only pull votes from Sharp. Although Sharp is by no means a liberal Democrat, he is more progressive than White. And, there are some things–like White’s close relationship with a former Enron executive–that are causing some Texas Democrats concern.
State Sen. Leticia Van De Putte (D-San Antonio) has been mentioned as someone who could make the move up to statewide office in the future. However, it seems unlikely that she’d give up a safe State Senate seat for this job, especially given that she may be that chamber’s majority leader within a cycle or two. She lacks the name recognition that Sharp and White possess. She has also seen the national spotlight recently, as co-chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convetnion in Denver.
State Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine). Gallego has little statewide name recognition, but a good record as a state legislator. He’d have a lot of hurdles to overcome to come out on top in this one, however. Too, he would not be someone that could unify the liberal and conservative wings of the party in Texas to secure a primary victory (again, if timing allowed for one) like Sharp could.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston). Ellis is reportedly ready to make a statewide run, but again doesn’t have statewide name recognition (although he does have more than Gallego, without question, because of his work on criminal justice issues. A statewide run that isn’t for a federal post is more likely in Ellis’ future.
State Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin). Watson is and has been a rising star in the party for years. A former Austin Mayor, he made a staewide run as part of the failed 2002 “Dream Team” with Tony Sanchez and Sharp. Now holding a safe senate seat, Watson is more likely a candidate for Lt. Governor, but would be a formidible opponent should he make a senate run.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky. The Houston attorney who opposed Hutchison in 2006 is more likely a candidate for Attorney General in 2010.
Gene Kelly. Kelly, the perennial candidate with the same name as the dead dancer, has to be mentioned, simply because he will file as long as he’s alive. In the past, he’s cost good Democrats the Senate nomination. However, his name doesn’t get him the currency it used to, as State Rep. Rick Noriega defeated him and another challenger, Ray McMurrey, a school teacher, in 2006 without a runoff.
Ray McMurrey. A Corpus Christi teacher, McMurrey may make another run for office, but is far from a candidate that the majority of folks on this list should be worried about.
Rafael Anchia. A Dallas State Representative, Texas Monthly last year deemed that Anchia would likely be the state’s first statewide Latino elected official someday. It is doubtful, however, that will come in a special election for U.S. Senate. It may come in 2010, but, again, would not be in the Senate race. He would, however, be a very credible and quality candidate.
Ron Kirk. The former Dallas mayor was defeated by Cornyn in 2002–the last time a Senate seat from Texas was open. It is doubtful he’d seek the post.
Henry Cisneros. The former San Antonio Mayor and Clinton HUD Secretary has been mentioned as a statewide candidate. However, his troubles from the Clinton administration hand a Republican opponent ready-made opposition research, making a run difficult.
Tags: TX SEN, John Sharp, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Bill White, Rick Perry (all tags)
Credit:
Read more here at this outstanding news source.
TX-Sen: John Sharp Will Run For Hutchison’s Seat - Cited by Sharpy News
Burnt Orange has the press release:
“I will be a candidate whether the election is in 2012 or any time before then,” said Sharp, who received the highest percentage of votes statewide of any Democrat during the past decade. “Texans face tough challenges that call for innovative solutions, and that’s what our campaign is all about.”
Sharp, 58, said he is forgoing the step of forming an exploratory committee and will file the required papers on January 1 so that he can begin raising money and campaigning across the state with the dawn of the new year.
Sharp, a former state comptroller, has the distinction of being the last Democrat to ever win a statewide race in Texas, but he’s since lost two races for Lieutenant Governor (’98 and ‘02). The early announcement seems timed to chase off Houston Mayor Bill White, who has also been talked about as a potentially strong candidate for whichever office Kay Bailey Hutchison does not run for:
Houston Mayor Bill White is also mentioned as a potential Democratic candidate. And Sharp’s early announcement appeared geared at discouraging White or other Democrats from entering the race. Among Republicans who might run are Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, former Secretary of State Roger Williams, Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, Fort Worth Rep. Kay Granger and Texas Sen. Florence Shapiro.
If KBH does indeed resign to wage a primary campaign against Gov. Rick Perry, it’s also possible that other Democrats can join the fray. Indeed, in the 1993 special election to fill the seat of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, there were 24 candidates on the first ballot. While Perry will appoint a replacement for Hutchison, I doubt that whoever he picks will have enough gravitas to hold off a swarm of fellow Republicans who’d want to take a crack at the seat. This one could be wild.
Credit:
Read more here at this outstanding news source.
Cheers to Life - Cited by Sharpy News
For me, the new year is an occasion to reflect on the triumphs and disappointments of the year past, to renew my goals and commitments, and to resolve again to face the new challenges and opportunities in the year ahead. This New Year’s Eve, I am toasting to life.
In North Carolina, where our office is based, death sentences dropped dramatically in 2008: only one man was sent to death row as juries across the state resoundingly voted in favor of life sentences. Not one person was executed. Two innocent men left North Carolina’s death row and stepped on free soil, including our client Bo Jones. For the first time in over 16 years, Bo spent the holiday season at home with his family.
Other death penalty states saw similar declines in death sentences and executions. Across the country, only some 112 defendants were sentenced to death, down dramatically from the average of about 300 seen in the 1990s. In Harris County, Texas, traditionally labeled "the capital of capital punishment," not one person was sentenced to death. Additionally, 2008 saw the lowest number (37) of executions in 14 years, only one of which occurred outside the South. The Supreme Court refused to find that Kentucky’s method of lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment, but in the same term, it rejected the death penalty for non-homicide crimes.
States across the country are acknowledging the exorbitant costs of administering the death penalty, especially in times of perilous budget shortfalls. New Jersey, just over a year into its abolition of the death penalty, seems to have no regrets. Doctors across the country — and just last week in Washington — are renewing their commitment to the Hippocratic Oath and refusing to play any part in ending a life. It is my wish for 2009 that we continue to witness these hopeful trends and see justice for all those under sentence of death.
Today, I toast all of the steadfast advocates, in the field of capital punishment and beyond, who have fought, often in the face of great personal, professional, and public adversity, for the lives and rights of society’s most vulnerable members, whom so many would cast aside. I reflect on all those who have lost their loved ones to homicide and execution and hope that this new year will bring them peace. And I celebrate all of the lives saved in 2008; for those on death row as well as for those facing the death penalty, every new day is a victory.
Credit:
Read more here at this outstanding news source.
In Minnesota, Democrat Al Franken’s lead is now at 49 votes, which means his GOP opponent, Norm Coleman, is going to sue and sue and sue - Political News
After weeks of recounting and canvassing, Al Franken has a 49 vote lead in the Minnesota Senate race. There are still absentee ballots being counted (the ones which were incorrectly rejected), although that process is itself quite complicated as all sides have to agree on which ballots to count. But, from the level of hysteria emanating from the GOP side, it’s pretty clear that they know Norm Coleman’s Senate career is winding down:
From Hastings to Washington, the battle over Minnesota’s heated U.S. Senate race raged Tuesday, as Democrats edged closer to declaring victory for Al Franken and campaign lawyers sparred over counting hundreds of rejected absentee ballots at meetings across the state.“At this stage, it appears that Franken will be certified the winner by the state Canvassing Board,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “We’re keeping abreast of the situation and will make a decision with regard to Senate action at the appropriate point in the process.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., went further, saying that if the Canvassing Board declares a winner on Monday, the Senate should “consider seating that person pending litigation.”
That brought a sharp retort from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who suggested the GOP will try to block any effort by Democrats to seat Franken before all legal issues in the recount are settled.
Those “legal issues” may take a while to settle. Norm Coleman and the Republicans are threatening lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. They’re quite willing to go to court to try to overturn the will of the voters. That’s classic GOP strategy. It’s what got us George Bush in 2000. Coleman is even being advised by GOP attorney Ben Ginsberg, who was Bush’s lawyer during the Florida debacle in 2000. But, over the past few weeks, we’ve seen that Minnesota in 2008 isn’t Florida of 2000. The voters might actually get to decide this one.
Credit:
Read more here at this outstanding news source.
“Please don’t take my mother out of my district - Today in Politics.”
With the 2008 election behind us, campaign finance reform in ashes and the 2010 census looming, redistricting reform has emerged as the next good government battleground. The increased attention to a normally boring and usually litigated issue is in large part due to the partisan gerrymandering in Texas that followed the 2000 census. What’s mostly forgotten is that a similar attempt was made in Colorado but failed in the courts.
In the aftermath of Texas and Colorado a national consensus of sorts to reform the way redistricting is done has emerged. There have been multiple efforts in numerous states towards some sort of reform and many different ideas from all over the political spectrum about what kind of form it should take.
The calls for change are only likely to increase as we near 2010, so now is as good a time as any to take a look at the issues in play and what reform might look like.
A little history
In 2001 the Texas and Colorado legislature were under split control and when redistricting came up, as often happens, gridlock ensued. In Colorado the task of redistricting was handled by a panel of federal judges, in Texas the matter was handed over to the Legislative Redistricting Board. In 2002 Republicans gained control of both houses of the state legislature in Colorado and Texas. Upon gaining power Republicans in both states promptly put a stop to the 200 year old practice of only redistricting every ten years.
The Texas story, I’m sure, is familiar to everyone but I’ll recap it anyway, for the sake of completeness. In 2003 Governor Rick Perry and the Republican legislature, backed by Tom Delay, tried to make redistricting the centerpiece of that year’s legislative session. When that didn’t work the Governor called a special session and the Democrats fled to Oklahoma and New Mexico. Eventually the Democrats came back, the plan got passed and the Republican caucus got fatter. The issue ended up in the US Supreme Court, who ruled that district 23 was in violation of the Voting Rights Act, but the rest of the redistricting plan was allowed to stand.
Colorado seems a bit more instructive of how these things tend to play out, with Texas as the exception. The Colorado state legislature passed a gerrymandered redistricting plan that was promptly dismissed by the Colorado Supreme Court, citing the fact that the state constitution only allowed for decennial redistricting. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court who decided they didn’t even want to hear it. Not to be stopped so easily Colorado Republicans sued again, and again took the case all the way to the US Supreme Court. This time the court took the case and sided unanimously against the plaintiffs. As a result Colorado has a sensible looking map and some actually competitive districts.
The courts haven’t always decided redistricting matters though; it wasn’t until the 1962 US Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr that the courts authority over these matters was established. Charles Baker, a resident of Tennessee, sued his state’s election official Joe Carr on the grounds that his vote was being diluted due to the state’s failure to reapportion, in violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. It had been 60 years since Tennessee had reapportioned its districts. Shortly after, in 1964, the US Supreme Court ruled that redistricting plans not based on equal population distribution would be rejected.
In 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed and almost immediately arguments over its meaning ensued. Does it require districts to be drawn so that racial minorities are given a voice in congress? That seems to be the common interpretation, but until recently the court decisions had been few and contradictory. The