Good Thursday morning Fellow Seekers,

The latest statements about and on behalf of U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad can, and probably should be taken to signify that he is laying the groundwork for reversing his September announcement to retire from Congress after nine terms representing the the suburban Third District of Minnesota.

Black Ink has reported for two months that Ramstad is considering changing his mind. Last week, my colleague Joe Bodell and I reported that the retirement announcement of the the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee had given Ramstad an extra reason to stay, and a possible justification for a reversal.

Wednesday morning, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call joined the speculation, and raised another justification for reconsideration. (The Roll Call piece is subscription required. MnPublius has excerpts.)

Ramstad has been co-sponsoring a bill to require that health insurance plans be required to provide coverage for mental illnesses and addictions equal to the coverage for physical ailments. the bill is named for Sen. Paul Wellstone, who pushed the same idea before his death.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Dem.-R.I.), Ramstad’s main co-sponsor, told Roll Call that Ramstad didn’t feel fully “comfortable” leaving Congress until he knew whether the Wellstone bill would pass during 2008. Kennedy implied, strangely, that Ramstad was negotiating to get assurances from the leaders of both parties that the bill would pass before finalizing his retirement plan (for some reason, he apparently didn’t require those assurances before announcing his retirement in the first place).

There’s another logic problem here.

When the Repubs controlled Congress, Ramstad could never even get a vote on the Wellstone bill, which I take as a pretty good indication that most Republicans don’t favor the mental health parity  mandate.

The Republican leadership is most anxious to convince Ramstad to re-up. He would be a heavy favorite for re-election. But the seat is rated a toss-up if Ramstad isn’t on the ballot. So what is the incentive for the Republican leadership to give assurances that a bill, which they don’t like much, will pass when those assurances will facilitate Ramstad’s retirement, which they are anxious to avoid?

But if Ramstad is leaning toward unretirement, his determination to pass the Wellstone bill would make a fine talking point.

Ramstad and his staff, with whom I have previously had good working relations, have stopped returning my calls or emails since I began asking about whether Ramstad was considering unretiring. But the Strib yesterday published a written statement from Ramstad’s long-time top aide, Dean Peterson, which read:

“Jim has no plans to run for re-election. But he does want to see his mental health and addiction treatment legislation become law before he leaves Congress.”

As I’ve written previously, “no plans to run” is a standard non-answer, since the plans can always be made later. “No plans” is several bricks shy of a Shermanesque statement. But when a “no plans to run” sentence is married is to a second sentence starting with the word “but,” you have roughly the antithesis of a Shermanesque statement.

By the way, that’s General William Tecumseh Sherman at left. He really wanted to end any speculation that he might run for president in 1884, he said:

“If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.” That about settled it.

What think?