![[Veepstakes]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/images/vpwatch_45x35.gif)
![[Battlegrounds]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/images/battleground_45x35.gif)
CA-24: Gallegly Reverses Retirement Decision
Rep. Elton Gallegly, a Republican who has represented California's 24th District for ten terms, reversed himself yesterday, saying he has decided he won't retire after all. Seems the White House was concerned enough to have the president and top strategist Karl Rove make calls to Gallegly urging him to reconsider.
See Chris's write-up in the Politics column from today's Post.
By washingtonpost.com Editors |
March 16, 2006; 8:47 AM ET
| Category:
House
Previous: 2008: The Case for Rudy Giuliani |
Next: Nebraska Senate: Is Deficit Issue a Winner for Ricketts?
Get This Widget >>
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | March 18, 2006 1:31 PM
All the Contract with America points did not pass. Amongst other things it included a proposed Constitutional Amendment for a balanced budget (Republicans' views on that issue sure havechanged), the slashing of committee staff, and social security "reform" (really, privitization). And really, the specifics never mattered. Large political shifts (whether in 1946 or 1994) are always an indictment of the party in power, not an endorsement of the opposition.
Posted by: Colin | March 16, 2006 12:48 PM
The Contract with America had ten points, all of the points passed except for the term limits for members of Congress, but term limits for committee chairs did pass, a six year limit for both committees and sub-committees.
Posted by: CongressStudent | March 16, 2006 10:46 AM
It says a lot that the republicans and Karl Rove are so worried about one single congressinoal district that they go out of their way to convince Gallegly to stay in the race. This shows how truly worried they are about losing the House despite the fake confidence they exude on tv.
Posted by: Ohio guy | March 16, 2006 10:29 AM
" ...has represented California's 24th District for ten terms..." Wasn't there something in the Contract with America about term limits?
Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 16, 2006 10:11 AM
Fear is in the air for the Republican Party. The Democratic strategy seems to resemble 1946 more than 1994 however. The party remains too fragmented to present a coherent vision. In 1946, "had enough?" by the Republicans worked. Can that work in 2008?
Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | March 16, 2006 9:33 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
I believe 3 of the Contract With America's 10 points ever passed.