Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) has filed the required paperwork to begin an exploratory committee to run for governor of Texas in 2010 a move she seriously considered four years ago but ultimately decided against to stay put in the Senate.

Republican Rick Perry, the current governor, has given no indication that he plans to step down after his term ends. Hutchison's Senate seat expires in 2012 but she is expected to resign once her gubernatorial campaign is under way.

I could write more on this subject, but heck, it's easier just stealing the following from my Political Junkie column of April 13, 2005:

Q: I have seen reports that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) may challenge Gov. Rick Perry in next year's Republican primary. I can recall governors challenging senators in a primary before (such as Arkansas Gov. Dale Bumpers against Sen. J.W. Fulbright in 1974, or South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow against Sen. Jim Abdnor in 1986), but not senators challenging governors. Harvey Hudson, Eden Prairie, Minn.

A: I agree. I cannot think of a single instance in which a sitting senator has gone home to run against an incumbent governor of the same party in a primary. As it is, the list of senators elected governor is small; just four have made the move in the past half-century: Price Daniel (D-TX) in 1956; Pete Wilson (R-CA) in 1990; Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) in 1998; and Frank Murkowski (R-AK) in 2002. And none challenged an incumbent to do so, in a primary or in the general.

Daniel ran only after Texas Gov. Allan Shivers (D), an ally, decided to retire. Both Wilson and Kempthorne succeeded retiring Republican governors (George Deukmejian and Phil Batt, respectively). Murkowski ran in Alaska to succeed a term-limited Democrat, Tony Knowles.

This year, Sen. Jon Corzine is the odds-on choice to be elected governor of New Jersey. Corzine's strength with Democratic county leaders is what forced acting Gov. Richard Codey, also a Dem, out of the race. But there was no primary. [Update: Corzine won, so add him to the list.]

And while I know there's probably more and please write me if you know of them I can only think of two other senators who ran for governor while still in office since senators were first popularly elected. In 1958, Bill Knowland, the Republican leader of the Senate from California, felt the best way for him to reach the White House was as a governor. The problem: Gov. Goodwin Knight, a fellow Republican (albeit more of a foe than a friend), didn't want to give up his job. A Knowland-Knight primary was averted when Knight gave way and ran for the Senate. As it was, both Republicans lost that year.

The other was Sen. Irving Ives (R-NY). When Gov. Thomas Dewey (R) announced late in 1954 that he wanted to retire, Republicans drafted Ives as their candidate for governor. He wound up losing to Averell Harriman, though he didn't have to give up his Senate seat.

One aside worth mentioning: Once upon a time, the thought of a senator going home to run for governor was seen as a step down. Why get lost in a sleepy state capital, the argument went, when you could be in Washington, where all the action was?

Many giants of the Senate Hiram Johnson of California, Harry Byrd of Virginia, Richard Russell of Georgia, to name just a few started off as governor. But lately, with partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill a constant and often tedious affair, the appeal of staying in Washington has lessened for some.

Pete Wilson, who served eight years in the Senate, said there was nothing more invigorating and stimulating than being governor. Dirk Kempthorne, who could have held onto his Idaho Senate seat forever, was anxious to go back home. A former mayor of Boise, he said when he left Washington that the power was shifting to the states, where the action was, and unlike D.C., where he was one of 100, he was now running the show.

Now that we've had our fun with political trivia, the bigger question is whether Hutchison will actually give up her Senate seat to challenge Perry. A source close to Hutchison tells me that anyone who says they know what she will do is lying, that a decision has still not been reached. But by all accounts, it looks like she's running.

That surprises me. Why would Hutchison give up a safe Senate seat to risk splitting the party back home? What did Perry do to invite a primary battle? Some Hutchison partisans have said that Perry has fallen down on the job and his numbers are declining, though I haven't seen much evidence.

And where is the White House in all of this? I don't know of any bad blood between President Bush and Rick Perry, who was W's hand-picked choice for lieutenant governor in his second term. So why is the administration silent? When conservative Rep. Pat Toomey challenged Sen. Arlen Specter in last year's Pennsylvania GOP primary, the White House didn't hesitate for a second they embraced Specter, who clearly had a better chance of winning statewide, despite being closer ideologically to Toomey. But nary a word from Karl Rove about the Hutchison-Perry family feud.

Some have attributed Hutchison's decision to her public pledge to serve no more than two full terms in the Senate. I've also read that she is "tired" of commuting between Washington and Texas. That's all well and good, but do you make such a dramatic move because you're tired? Certainly, if Hutchison vacated her Senate seat, there would be a mad scramble among many Texas Republicans state officeholders, members of Congress to take her place.

The Perry people are prepared; they've circulated a video of Hutchison appearing with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) at a Washington ceremony from last month in which the two briefly embrace and Clinton calls Hutchison "my partner on so many important fronts." Perry has defended the tactic; Hutchison called it a "political cheap shot."

Stay tuned.

Tags: On The Ballot