Trio mentioned as possible candidates to succeed Roe demur — at least for now

The Johnson City Press contacted state Reps. David Hawk and Matthew Hill, along with Washington County Mayor Dan Eldridge, after their names were mentioned in a Washington report as prospective candidates for the 1st Congressional District seat, should incumbent U.S. Rep. Phil Roe decide not to seek reelection. Perhaps predictably, the newspaper reports none of them said yes to a run at this point; but they didn’t give an absolute no, either.

Hawk said he hoped Roe would decide to run again, “for at least another two-year term.”

“I am honored to have my name associated with individuals considering a potential run for Congress, should Dr. Roe decide not to run for reelection. At this point in time, my 16 years of service in Nashville have allowed me to rise to be one of the most senior members in the Tennessee General Assembly,” Hawk, the assistant majority leader, said.

“I currently have a desire to rise to an even greater position of influence in our state legislature, later this year, and look forward to making that announcement soon. If I am not successful in that endeavor, I will certainly look more closely at a potential run for Congress in the future.”

(Note: Hawk is among representatives eyeing a run for House speaker. The current speaker, Beth Harwell, is giving up her House seat to run for governor Her term as speaker ends next January.)

Although Eldridge was on vacation outside the county, he also replied via text message, once again declining interest in another public office after announcing he would not seek reelection as mayor in October.

“While I’m very interested in working to solve the economic and demographic challenges facing our region, I’m not sure a congressional seat is the place where I can be most effective. I really hope Congressman Roe will serve one more term,” said Eldridge.

Hill, who serves as House majority whip, did not decline interest in Roe’s seat, but said he is currently focused on “serving the men, women and families of our community.”

“I have tremendous respect for Congressman Roe, and it is an honor to be mentioned as a potential candidate for the first congressional district seat,” Hill said.

“Our state has experienced remarkable success under conservative Republican leadership over the last several years, and I’m excited about our work ahead in order to ensure that Northeast Tennessee continues to thrive.”

Dallas Cowboys’ tight end Jason Witten’s name was also mentioned, but he already told CBSSports.com he would return to the NFL next year.

Note: Previous post HERE.

8 Responses to Trio mentioned as possible candidates to succeed Roe demur — at least for now

  • Stuart I. Anderson says:

    Yesterday I indicated that Rep. Roe’s Heritage Action score over the last eight years was 63%. Actually it is 66% which is terrible and gives conservatives reason to long for his retirement.

  • James White says:

    David Hawk and Matthew Hill both voted for an Article V Constitutional Convention. This is very dangerous and they should not win any office they seek.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      In order for an Article V convention to take place both houses (except for Nebraska) of two thirds of the legislatures will have to agree on an agenda and both houses of three-quarters of the states will then have to ratify whatever the convention produces. NOW SERIOUSLY, are you really going to continue to disqualify fine conservative candidates on the basis of their votes in favor of a convention that has an infinitesimal chance of ever taking place and/or getting what it produces ratified? PLEASE DON’T DO IT JAMES, WE NEED YOU!

      • James White says:

        Stuart, you are just making things up. The original convention bypassed the rules and a new convention can too. The congress will decide the rules, the state legislature can only ask Congress to call a convention and maybe get to ratify any changes (or state convention ratifying committees or popular vote)? It is too dangerous to have one, they could rewrite the whole constitution and how to ratify it.
        How could anyone vote for someone that doesn’t want to keep the constitution as it is? Congress is the problem, not the Constitution.

        • Stuart I. Anderson says:

          Interesting. I never saw the anti-Article V convention explained so well, thank-you. I haven’t paid much attention to this because I don’t think anything will come of it. It’s elections that matter in a democracy. The Article V convention issue simply serves to distract conservatives from that fact.

          As to your affection for our current written constitution, it’s better than the nothing, but it hasn’t proven itself able to keep the federal government confined to the areas intended by our founding fathers. It has not prevented us from living under a judicial tyranny in which unelected judges frequently overturn federal and state laws passed by the legislature and signed by the executive and even laws enacted by referendum passed by the voters. Faced with these shortcomings some conservatives are wasting much time and effort trying to convene an Article V convention. In the long-run even a written constitution is no more effective than the political will of the voters to see that its provisions are enforced.

          • James White says:

            Yes, the voters are uneducated and that is why they continue to elect poor representatives. But OH if we don’t put a REPUBLICAN in there (any republican) it will all go BAD.. HA . A vote for the lesser evil is a vote for evil.
            Thanks.

  • James White says:

    Oh, and the TN Legislature has an Article V bill in the hopper for Term Limits for Congress. Hypocrites, where is the Term Limits for the TN Legislature. By the way, I am AGAINST Term Limits period.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      Me too! Limiting the ability of voters to vote for a candidate on the basis of some arbitrary time limit during which someone can hold an elective office furthers neither democracy nor efficient government. It does, however, enhance the power of bureaucrats who usually hold their jobs for decades.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *