Is Ramstad Still SERIOUSLY Considering Unretiring?
Friday, December 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm
- 6 Comments
This post relies on reporting by my Minnesota Monitor teammate Joe Bodell as well of my own.
There’s a fresh wave of discussion in Washington and Minnesota of the possibility that U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad may change his annnounced plans to retire and seek another term. A very good source of mine has stated that this active reconsideration is occurring. My colleague Joe Bodell has the same information from a different Capitol Hill source.
Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, has decided to retire. Ramstad currently ranks three seniority notches lower, but could be offered the ranking position as an inducement to stay.
[JB]: Apparently, the two Republicans ahead of Ramstad on the seniority totem pole — Wally Herger of California and Dave Camp of Michigan — are seen as minor roadblocks to Ramstad’s ascension, especially if the position of ranking member is dangled as a carrot to entice him out of retirement.
Ramstad’s seat is currently seen as one of the most competitive open seat races in the nation. An unretirement would call that status into question: with the NRCC strapped for cash, caucus leaders will be looking for any opportunity to save money by turning a toss-up race into a likely hold for the GOP.
6 Comments
Comment posted December 14, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Placement of source? Although not stated, I guess the presumption here is that your sources only commented on conditions of anonymity?
That being said, can you explain why they would have this information (an anonymous source in Ramstad’s offce, anonymous Republican officials, etc).
Ramstad never struck me as a guy itching for power – the ranking member seat doesn’t seem to solve the reasons why Ramstad retired to begin with…
Comment posted December 14, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
The impression coming from Capitol Hill Is that Ramstad, had he known that McCrery was going to retire this cycle, would not have retired himself. If you make two side-by-side lists, one filled with reasons to stay and the other containing reasons to retire, make a decision based on those lists, and then all of a sudden a BIG “stay” reason magically appears….do you not reassess?
Comment posted December 14, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Not qualified for GOP leadership Ramstad is listed as an initial signer of the ScienceDebate2008 initiative. Doesn’t such a close affiliation with rationality disqualify him from consideration for a leadership position in today’s GOP House caucus?
Comment posted December 14, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Placement of source? Although not stated, I guess the presumption here is that your sources only commented on conditions of anonymity?
That being said, can you explain why they would have this information (an anonymous source in Ramstad's offce, anonymous Republican officials, etc).
Ramstad never struck me as a guy itching for power – the ranking member seat doesn't seem to solve the reasons why Ramstad retired to begin with…
Comment posted December 14, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
The impression coming from Capitol Hill Is that Ramstad, had he known that McCrery was going to retire this cycle, would not have retired himself. If you make two side-by-side lists, one filled with reasons to stay and the other containing reasons to retire, make a decision based on those lists, and then all of a sudden a BIG “stay” reason magically appears….do you not reassess?
Comment posted December 14, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Not qualified for GOP leadership Ramstad is listed as an initial signer of the ScienceDebate2008 initiative. Doesn't such a close affiliation with rationality disqualify him from consideration for a leadership position in today's GOP House caucus?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
