Via Greg in TX22, I see that NRO's Rich Lowry is reporting a rumor from CD22.
TX- 22: Shelley Sekula-Gibbs v. Nick Lampson: Republicans still haven't totally given up on this one. The internal polls have her within the margin of error and rumors have apparently been swirling around the district that Lampson will consider switching parties after the election. So this one is still bubbling a bit.
Absurd. If Nick was going to switch parties, he should've done it much earlier and saved me a lot of hard work. Nick is more conservative than some dems. But he's no Ralph Hall. First, he is fiercly loyal. Second he is pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, and pro-workers rights. None of which jibes with the RNC. I can say unequivically that Nick is not now, nor will he ever, consider switching parties. Never, never, never.
He also believes tax cuts should be geared toward middle class folks trying to get ahead. Not the Ken Lays and Skillings of the world. Nick will never ever be a Republican. Just in case my first email didn't say it strongly enough. A rumor like that is very upsetting.In fact, I would respond to the Republicans that they are going to lose this seat because they became too negligent, too arrogant, and too corrupt. And any suggestion that they win win it back with a turncoat is just wishful thinking. Sorry, but growing up in Texas during the transformation, turncoats really raise my ire and I know Nick feels the same way.
Doubt it is true; even if it is Lampson would not be able to win the Republican Primary in 2008 - only 16 months away.
Either way, there is a very good chance he is a one term only Congressman.
BTW, I tried to write in someone the other day when I voted - it is a bitch. Lampson will win just based on my experience.
Having to dial in 'Sheila Sekula-Gibbs is next to impossible.
Posted by: Aaron on November 4, 2006 8:48 AMWhile I don't believe Nick is going to switch parties, these rumors get started because Nick is on record:
1. supporting partial birth abortion and against federally funded abortions
2. saying Houaton is a sanctuary city
3. building a fence on the border
4. his "stay the course" in Iraq response in the Chronicle voter guide
This kind of stuff does not warm the heart of the Democratic base. I would be interested in hearing Mike's response to these issues. I think these are Nick's conservative leanings, but Mike needs to understand THIS is why those rumors got started and why they persist.
Posted by: muse on November 4, 2006 9:46 AMI would hope that Lampson will be a representative for ALL the people in his District, not just Democrats. This would be unlike DeLay who pretended that 40% of his District and 50% of the population as a whole did not exist. Lampson's only chance to get reelected in 2008 is to support items 1-3 above (as do the majority in CD22). Issue 4, well he is wrong of course.
Posted by: Bill on November 4, 2006 1:11 PMI don't know how these things get started,
I suspect they get started because people like to speculate.
Throw in a little wishful thinking and blog-publishing, and pretty soon you've got a spreading rumor!
Kinda like that rumored KBH/DMN governor's poll that had Chris Bell surging....
Posted by: kevin whited on November 4, 2006 3:44 PMI never give statements from politicians or campaigns very much weight. For instance, our former Congressman recently proclaimed on Fox News that he doesn't have any ethical problems. Only a Republican precinct chair could believe that!
So we're left with just a gut feel to determine the veracity of such rumors. I tend to fall along the lines of previous poster Aaron. What good would switching parties do now? I can't imagine that the Republican Party would warmly endorse Lampson in the 2008 primary. I know it would be difficult for me to support him.
The alternative narrative is that Lampson is a certain one-termer if he remains a Democrat. There is a shimmer of hope if he switches parties -- a very faint shimmer in my opinion.
Posted by: Greg in TX22 on November 4, 2006 4:25 PM