Skip to comments.State representative vies for Hoekstra's congressional seat
Posted on 12/16/2008 5:59:24 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
State Rep. Bill Huizenga jumped first, but he likely won't be alone in seeking a U.S. House seat being vacated in 2010 by longtime Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra.
At a press conference today, Huizenga was to tout his legislative experience and his ties to Hoekstra in announcing he would seek to replace his former boss.
"A lot of people have asked me to run and I feel I need to fill a void that Pete's announcement has created," said Huizenga, R-Zeeland. "I've been through every part of the district and I know it from every aspect, from fruit growers to industrial manufacturing."
Huizenga, 39, served as Hoekstra's director of public policy from 1996 to 2002.
Hoekstra said Monday he would not seek a 10th term in office, immediately bringing speculation about who would run for the position, which is expected to draw a crowd of candidates.
"I'm well aware of the fact there may be a long list of people who will consider it," Hoekstra said earlier.
State Sen. Wayne Kuipers has been prominently mentioned along the Lakeshore as a possibility.
Reached Monday night, Kuipers, R-Holland, conceded he has thought of running. He said he has made no decision and will evaluate a possible campaign in the early part of 2009. Kuipers' term runs through 2010.
"I'm certainly interested and, if it's something that fits in with my family, I may do it," Kuipers said. "When the time is right, after this lame-duck session, I'll take a closer look."
Kuipers said he believes between five and eight people will explore running in the Republican primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
Look for a crowded field of Republicans with Dutch surnames.
Most Republican seat in Michigan. Even voted for McCain it seems. It’s antecedent last went rat in 1932, the only time in 20th century. Should be safe as long our guy is name Van something.
There have only been three men who have represented the counties up and down Lake Michigan (once was called the 9th CD) since 1956—Bob Griffin, who vacated the seat when he was appointed US Senator at the death of Sen. MacNamara; Guy Vanderjagt, who was a state senator at the time, won the election to replace him—he served from 1966-92, when he was upset in the GOP primary by Peter Hoekstra.
Griffin succeeded Albert Engel, who left Congress to become the local US District Court judge; I don’t know how far back Engel served (I grew up in Fremont, MI, in Newaygo County, which historically has been one of the most GOP-friendly counties in the state, between the Hollanders and the Gerber family). Newaygo County, so far as I can tell, has always been in this district, where the largest city is Muskegon.
My source is this. They have a chart for every state.
The 2nd was the 9th before 1992.
A woman named Ruth Thompson served between Engel and Griffin.
Engel won in 1934, beat the 1 term rat.
My source is this. They have a chart for every state.
The 2nd was the 9th before 1992.
A woman named Ruth Thompson first woman on the House Judiciary committee served between Engel and Griffin. Griffin beat her in the primary in 56. Griffin seems to have been a moderate. Maybe she was more a conservative.
Engel won in 1934, beat the 1 term rat.
There have only been 7 individuals to represent that seat since 1907 (8 since 1895). When Republican James McLaughlin won in 1906, he lasted for the next 26 years, but lost reelection (at 74) to Democrat Harry Musselwhite in the ‘32 FDR landslide. McLaughlin died only 3 weeks later before the end of the session. Republican Albert Engel then beat Musselwhite in 1934, one of the modest gains made by the GOP that year (though we overall lost seats).
Engel decided to run for Governor in 1950 (ill-advised), and lost the primary to ex-Gov. Harry Kelly. Kelly lost a heartbreakingly narrow margin to freshman Democrat Soapy Williams (just a smidge over 1,000 votes where the Prohibitionist candidate probably made the difference).
Engel was succeeded by Republican Ruth Thompson. Bob Griffin beat Thompson in the ‘56 GOP primary (I’d imagine age played a factor, as she was 69 and Griffin was a vigorous 33. Griffin has now outlived his successor, Vander Jagt, and is 85). If Hoekstra runs for Governor, he’d be well-advised to make sure the path is cleared, or he might end up like Engel did back in ‘50.
DJ, Congressman Hoekstra is sure to win the MI governorship, given that he’s a foreign-born naturalized citizen . . . . : )
All kidding aside, Hoekstra was born in the Netherlands and his family moved to the U.S. when he was a small child (once, when looking for potential runningmates for Fred Thompson, I thought of Hoekstra, then remembered that he was constitutionally ineligible to serve as President or VP). And, as we all know, current Gov. Granholm was born in Canada and is also a naturalized citizen. When was the last time that two foreign-born, naturalized U.S. citizens served back-to-back as governors of a state?
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
I’ll take Hoekstra over Cox any day. Sorry that Candice Miller won’t be running though.
Well, I went and did some research for you going back to the late 19th century (before that, there’d be a larger pool). After the early 1890s, 4 states elected back-to-back foreign born Governors. 3 elected 2 in a row (ID, NV & OR), 1 elected 3 (!) in a row, Utah. The high point seemed to have come in the 1910s when at least 3 or more states had at least 1 foreign-born Governor. But Idaho was the “last” to elect 2 in a row — in 1918. Utah the last to elect 3 in a row — in 1916 (of those 3, the first two were English born, whose parents were Mormon converts that moved out West, both Republicans; the third was a German Jew Democrat who beat the incumbent English Mormon in an upset. That’s the last Jew ever to serve as Governor of UT).
AL - None after 1890
AK - None after statehood, 1959
AZ - (After statehood, 1912); Raul Castro of Sonora, Mexico (1975-77)
AR - None after 1893
CA - (After 1891); Arnold Schwarzenegger, Austria (2003-
CO - None after statehood, 1875
CT - (After 1893); Hiram Bingham of Hawaii (then a foreign country, born to missionary parents) (1925); John Dempsey of Ireland (naturalized) (1961-71); Lowell Weicker, Paris, France (1991-95)
DE - None after 1895
FL - None after 1881
GA - None after 1894
HI - None after statehood, 1959
*ID - (After statehood, 1890); Frank Robert Gooding of England (naturalized) (1905-09); Moses Alexander of Bavaria (Germany) (1915-19); David William Davis of Wales (naturalized) (1919-23)
IL - (After 1873); John Peter Altgeld of Germany (1893-97); Samuel Shapiro, Estonia (naturalized) (1968-69) (not elected)
IN - None after 1891
IA - None after 1894
KS - None after 1893
KY - None after 1875
LA - None after 1892
ME - None after 1897
MD - None after 1896
MA - (After 1896); Christian Herter, Paris, France (1953-57)
MI - (After 1897); Fred M. Warner of England (naturalized-adopted by American couple) (1905-11); John Burley Swainson of Ontario (naturalized) (1961-63); George Romney: Chihuahua, Mexico (1963-69); Jennifer Granholm, Canada (2003-
MN - (After 1895); John Lind of Sweden (1899-1901); Adolph Olson Eberhart of Sweden (1909-15); Hjalmar Petersen of Denmark (1936-37)
MS - None after 1896
MO - None after 1897
MT - (After statehood, 1893); Frank Henry Cooney of Canada (naturalized) (1933-35); John Hugo Aronson of Sweden (naturalized) (1953-61); Stan Stephens of Canada (naturalized) (1989-93)
NE - None after 1893
**NV - John Edward Jones, Wales (naturalized) (1895-96); Reinhold Sadler, Prussia (naturalized) 1896-1903 (Jones and Sadler had an interesting distinction as they were running mates, both foreign born, Jones died in office, Sadler elected in his own right)
NH - (After 1893); John McLane of Scotland (naturalized) (1905-07); John Sununu of Cuba (1983-89)
NJ - None after 1887
NM - (After statehood, 1912); Octaviano Ambrosio Larrazolo of Chihuahua, Mexico (naturalized) (1919-21)
NY - None after 1892
NC - None after 1893
ND - (After statehood, 1889); Roger Allin of England (then became Canadian citizen) (naturalized) (1895-97); Ragnvold Anderson Nestos of Norway (naturalized) (1921-25); Walter Welford of England (naturalized) (1935-37) - succeeded Gov. Moodie (who was removed office for not meeting state residency requirements); John Moses of Norway (naturalized) (1939-45)
OH - None after 1890
OK - None after Statehood, 1907
***OR - (After 1887); Oswald West of Ontario, Canada (naturalized) (1911-15); James Withycombe of England (naturalized) (1915-19); Albin Walter Norblad, Sr. of Sweden (naturalized) (1929-31) - succeeded Gov. Patterson (deceased)
PA - (After 1883); John Kinley Tener of Ireland (1911-15)
RI - (After 1887); Aram Pothier of Quebec, Canada (naturalized) (1909-15; 1925-28)
SC - None after 1890
SD - (After statehood, 1889); Andrew Ericson Lee of Norway (naturalized) (1897-1901); Sigurd Anderson of Norway (naturalized) (1951-55)
TN - None after 1883
TX - None after 1891
****UT - (After statehood, 1896); John Christopher Cutler of England (naturalized) (1905-09) William Spry of England (naturalized) (1909-17); Simon Bamberger of Germany (naturalized) (1917-21)
VT - (After 1890); Josiah Grout of Quebec, Canada (1896-98); Joseph Blaine Johnson of Sweden (1955-59); Madeleine M. Kunin of Switzerland (naturalized) (1985-91)
VA - (After 1890); Westmoreland Davis (American citizen, but born in Atlantic Ocean en route to England) (1918-22)
WA - (After statehood, 1889); Ernest Lister of England (naturalized) (1913-19); Roland H. Hartley of New Brunswick, Canada (naturalized) (1925-33)
WV - None after statehood, 1863
WI - (After 1889); James O. Davidson of Norway (1906-11); Julius Peter Heil of Germany (naturalized) 1939-43
WY - None after statehood, 1890
DJ, thanks for your herculean effort. Hopefully, MI, and not CA, will become the first state 90 years to elect two straight foreign-born, naturalized governors.
Some of the guys on your list were U.S. citizens at birth because they had U.S. citizen parents; Lowell Weicker comes to mind. But the Idaho governors appear to be legit naturalized citizens.
Whoops, I made an error on the Utah description. Gov. Spry did not face Bamberger in 1916. Bamberger faced another Republican who was the Progressive candidate in 1912, Nephi Morris. Bamberger’s Wikipedia entry is interesting, especially how he managed to defuse anti-Semitism during his campaign. Sounded like he was a really funny and personable guy.
He chose not to run for a second term in 1920 (perhaps wise, since even if he was mildly popular, he’d have likely been carried out because of the massive GOP national landslide, still our best year of the 20th century and to date).
What’s wrong with Cox? I was thinking he would be the next Governor of Michigan.
Very interesting. That commie Altgeld huh. The worst Illinoisans come from foreign lands...;p
Wasn’t 1894 just as good a Republican year as 1920?
The rats were clearly the bad guys since then with jerks like Altgeld and Bryan wresting the national party from the Bourbons.
If I was a Congressional district Id’ve been GOP held at least since then.
Hoekstra was the only Conservative in Michigan! Sad to see him going.
I hope he runs for Governor!
In sheer numbers, the 1921-23 Congress had more Republicans (302R/131D) and they held 69% of the seats (the Senate was much less, we've never held that many Senate seats, well above 60 at any point). The 1894 election was an anti-Democrat backlash (a lot of the gains being made in Dem-leaning border states or even in the Southern states themselves), and the Dems held only 93 out of 357 seats (just 26% to the Republicans whopping 70% and 254 seats). So technically, by a single %, the GOP held a higher number of seats than 1921-23. Virtually all the Dem seats were restricted to the South. The gains were short-lived, however, as even as McKinley won in '96, the GOP lost 48 House seats, most of those being fluke wins in those aforementioned states (some of which would not go GOP again until either 1920 or until the 1990s).
Back during the 1860s, however, when most of the Southern states had seceded, the GOP reached their record highs ever set in the House. In the 1861-63 Congress, the Dems were reduced to just 24% of the body. But they made considerable gains in the midterms opposing Lincoln, gaining enough to move up to 39% (the GOP held only a plurality, with the difference being held by Unionist members, some of whom were War Democrats). But the gains were wiped out in '64, and the Democrats dropped to their lowest level ever of just 19.6% of the membership. That was just below the Republicans lowest point of 20.2% in the horrible 1937-39 Congress when they dropped to 88 out of 435 seats (the Dems held almost 77% of the body).
"The rats were clearly the bad guys since then with jerks like Altgeld and Bryan wresting the national party from the Bourbons."
Well, there was a large contingent of leftists (as we understand them in the modern sense today) that wanted to take over the party. The 1896 election was the point at which the Dems officially became the leftist party (not to say the GOP was, because although some make the argument that they were up until that time, it's hard for us to make a clear statement of that being so due to issues we simply no longer contend with today. Hell, I'd make the argument that freeing the slaves and "equality" of Black and White are Conservative issues. Supporting a slave system was antithetical to the Constitution and to freedom, an entire race of people prevented from being able to move up and share in the rights of everyone else that happened to be White. It's the left that proliferates oppression).
1894 is real amazing in that 1890 was a heavily democrat year a majority was GOP in 1888. 4 years later congress was as heavily Republican as it was Democrat. Huge turnover. I’d like to see that in 2010...
We’ve talked before about past political affiliation. Taffifs (which may not have even mattered all that much) were THE issue for a long time. I’d probably be for lower tariffs. The good news was there didn’t used to be a socialist traitor party. I would have probably opposed some Republican things. Draft/income tax! while being anti-slavery and anti-postreconstuction serfdom.
I’d have been a manifest destiny supporter for sure! This would have led me being uncool with Whig opponents to this. Somewhere along the line the Dems switched on that. Cleveland’s Bourbons denounced Harrison’s “imperialism”.