Omnibus 'congresscritters retiring next year' announcements

[Mr.Phips]

Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

You want to be in permanent minority for next 20-30 years, but preserve your "pure progressive views"? Fine, you will get your wish.

Im wondering if Republicans will beat the Democrats' near 62 year run of the House from 1932 to 1994.  Republicans have controlled the House for 14 of the last 18 years and if they hold the House for the rest of the decade it will be 24 out of 28 years. 

[Sibboleth]

Shut up.

[smoltchanov]

Just saw it on Politico and the NC 2012 thread but figured I'd post it here, too, for those that don't read the other sources.

Good riddance.

You want to be in permanent minority for next 20-30 years, but preserve your "pure progressive views"? Fine, you will get your wish.

Im wondering if Republicans will beat the Democrats' near 62 year run of the House from 1932 to 1994.  Republicans have controlled the House for 14 of the last 18 years and if they hold the House for the rest of the decade it will be 24 out of 28 years. 

Surely - no. With Republican party "going right" with even greater speed then Democrats "go left" - no chance at all.

[Governor Scott]

I don't think it's right to say that conservatives outnumber liberals just because of what some polls say.  Democrats are more prone to call themselves moderate for the sake of saying they're moderate, so that takes many points away from the liberals.  The country really doesn't skew one way or another, in fact; it's pretty dead-center, when you look at the history of our elections.  I just feel that ideology has more meaning to it than party labels.  If you don't have a party that can fill out its promises, then you don't actually have real power or influence.  I respect the right of people in Taylor's district to elect who best represents them, but I'd personally view Taylor as more of a centrist/moderate Republican on the major issues.

For the record, I don't object to moderation in politics.  I'm moderate on certain issues, myself.  But you can only distance yourself from your party so much until you identify more with the opposite party, if that makes sense.

1. Conservatives outnumber liberals.  And by much. It's not "some polls", it's consistent polling year after year, so this is a scientific fact..

2. For me ideology isn't important at all. It's because of "ideological demands" that i refuse to be member of any party consistently. The only one thing that matters to me - you either want to win elections, or you don't. If you do - as written by  someone above - i would gladly take House with 230 Democrats  (of which 70 would be DINOs) and 205 Republicans (or vice versa with DINOs substituted on RINOs) over permanent Democratic caucus with 180 out 180 being "pure progressives" (or vice versa for Republicans with "bona-fide conservatives" substituted). Then - what will be will be. If you equate Democratic party with "liberal party" and Republican with "conservative party" - fine, but i am neither liberal, nor conservative. So - then i don't have place in any and must look for 3rd party to reflect my interests...

3. Remind me - which party were Larry McDonald, John Rarick and Bob Stump (initially)? And, on the other side - Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Ogden Reid (initially) and Charles Whalen. And US was better governed then then now. BTW - the best American President (IMHO) - Franklin Roosevelt - worked very amicably with many conservative Democrats in his own party as well as with many Republicans as well. And got the results that was realistic. And what was unrealistic in his time (can you imagine DADT THEN? or even major Civil Rights laws?) was delayed until it became possible. He didn't conducted a "scorched earth" politics ("i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool") politics, which now is a trademark of BOTH political parties - Democrats as well as Republicans. If Obamacare is ahead of time - it must wait, if not - it will be accepted by majority not only of Democratic activists, but - majority of population.

4. I think - vast majority of people in Taylor's district will sharply disagree with you and call him "slightly liberal (for local tastes) Democrat". After all - he was defeated not for being "too conservative", but vice versa. And many who voted for Palazzo were Democrats))))

Uh, no.  It's not as simple as asking a bunch of people which box they can categorically be placed into.  To determine which direction the country leans overall, you'd have to closely look at electoral trends of the country, various polls on specific issues, demographics, statistics, etc.  Pretty much like what we do on this board.  This country has no left or right lean to it and is very much at the center.  And in case you haven't been paying attention, social conservatism is on a steady decline right now.  You definitely can't make that argument with any credibility.

If you don't understand the significance of ideology in politics, then I don't think you understand politics at all.  In order to have a political party with any credibility or influence at all, you need a set of ideology-based demands.  You need something to bring to the table.  If you constantly agree with your opponent on everything, then you don't have any political capital or legitimacy.  So if the Democratic Party focuses all its resources on people like Gene Taylor for "bipartisanship", then our supposed majority would be just as useless for us as a Republican majority and the Democrats wouldn't make the reforms they said they would... just like with health care.

Back in FDR's time, both parties were very moderate and the issues of the day were different than now.  Today's Democrats running the show have compromised over everything.  I fail to see how we're guilty for the brokenness in Washington.

Well, of course many Democrats voted for Palazzo.  This is Mississippi, after all.  Most Democrats in that district are actually very conservative Republicans on both social and economic issues.  Progressives didn't even turn out to vote in 2010.

[smoltchanov]

Well, Mr. Scott, i understand politics. Probably - much better then you are. I study it for 40 years (since i was a high school student in Moscow) I clearly understand importance of ideology in parliamentary democracy of European style, where there are 4-6 parties, and where the government is frequently coalitional. But i don't understand (and don't intend to) usage of similar criteria in a country ,where there are only 2 big political parties. It's too few for them to be strictly ideological(what gradually happens during last quarter century and reached unthincable level recently), and clever political leaders of Roosevelt-Kennedy time understood it quite well. They also understood (contrary to you) that politics is "an art of compromise", and  not (as i mentioned above) misuse of "i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" approach. Contrary to present leaders and many extreme "activists", who became to dominate BOTH political parties approximately since Reagan. It seems that it's you, who doesn't want to understandsuch simple statements, so my offer is to agree to disagree and ignore each other in the future. We will not come to any agreement  on BASIC principles, so - what for? Be in permanent minority with your "pristine party" if you want, you will only help Republicans with that, and they will gladly accept such your help. And leave all, who is not "pure" (it doesn't matter whether they are populist on economy and social conservatives or fiscal conservatives and social liberals) alone. You don't want to adapt to them and accept them? You will pay for that by forfeiting majority and power.

[MilesC56]

My Congresswoman, Sue Myrick, is retiring.

Good riddance!

Myrick was part of the class of 1994; as such, she took one of Gingrich's pledges to only serve 7 terms. Of course, she broke that pledge by running in 2008.

Obviously, no chance of a Democratic pickup.

Numbers:

- Even though this district swung 20 points to Obama in 2008 (he lost here 54-45 compared to Kerry's 64-35), the average for local Republicans is almost 60%.

- Kay Hagan also overperformed here; she got 46% and held Dole to only 50%.

- And of course, the bottom fell out for Perdue, as she only got 32% against McCrory.

[MilesC56]

Some possible replacements for Myrick:

- State Sen. Bob Rucho. My Senator . The mastermind behind the so-called "fair and legal" Republican redistricting maps. He Chaired the Senate redistricting Committee and drew the maps; much like Brad Miller did 10 years ago. He lives in Matthews. From what I've seen, he has a good relationship with Myrick.

- State Rep. Ruth Samuleson. My representative . Her district includes the more affluent parts of south-central Mecklenburg county.

- House Speaker Thom Tillis. Lives in northern Mecklenburg county. Still I'm not sure he'd want to run for Congress; with the Republicans having likely control of the Assembly for the next decade, his position as Speaker should be pretty secure. I've heard rumors that he plans to run against Hagan in 2014.

- John Lassiter. He was on the Charlotte city council and ran against Anthony Foxx for Charlotte mayor in 2009, losing by 3,000 votes. Haven't heard much from him since.

[Governor Scott]

Well, Mr. Scott, i understand politics. Probably - much better then you are. I study it for 40 years (since i was a high school student in Moscow) I clearly understand importance of ideology in parliamentary democracy of European style, where there are 4-6 parties, and where the government is frequently coalitional. But i don't understand (and don't intend to) usage of similar criteria in a country ,where there are only 2 big political parties. It's too few for them to be strictly ideological(what gradually happens during last quarter century and reached unthincable level recently), and clever political leaders of Roosevelt-Kennedy time understood it quite well. They also understood (contrary to you) that politics is "an art of compromise", and  not (as i mentioned above) misuse of "i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" approach. Contrary to present leaders and many extreme "activists", who became to dominate BOTH political parties approximately since Reagan. It seems that it's you, who doesn't want to understandsuch simple statements, so my offer is to agree to disagree and ignore each other in the future. We will not come to any agreement  on BASIC principles, so - what for? Be in permanent minority with your "pristine party" if you want, you will only help Republicans with that, and they will gladly accept such your help. And leave all, who is not "pure" (it doesn't matter whether they are populist on economy and social conservatives or fiscal conservatives and social liberals) alone. You don't want to adapt to them and accept them? You will pay for that by forfeiting majority and power.

For the love of God.  I don't oppose compromise or bipartisanship, I oppose turning back on what you promised to your constituents for the mere gesture of bipartisanship, especially when you're dealing with another party that doesn't want to concede anything themselves.  But if you want to end this discussion and shun each other, then that's fine by me.

[MilesC56]

Scott and smoltchanov...this is turning into a thread hijack. Please take it elsewhere. I think you both have a good understanding of politics.

[smoltchanov]

For the love of God.  I don't oppose compromise or bipartisanship, I oppose turning back on what you promised to your constituents for the mere gesture of bipartisanship, especially when you're dealing with another party that doesn't want to concede anything themselves.  But if you want to end this discussion and shun each other, then that's fine by me.

As  correctly stated by Miles - we deviated from original theme. I simply don't see the need to continue - for me the most important thing is to win the election, and, because the elections are conducted by district, you simply MUST run a candidate that suits the district (liberal in SF, conservative in rural Louisiana for example) in order to maximize your chances. All ideological criteria are secondary and much less important to me. That's obviously not so for you. So - there is no purpose to continue. Let's conclude with that and let's not (again using Miles's words) "highjack" the theme)))

[Joe Republic]

In honor of Sue Myrick...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SrAe21fi_4c

[Vasall des Midas]

Some possible replacements for Myrick:

- State Sen. Bob Rucho. My Senator . The mastermind behind the so-called "fair and legal" Republican redistricting maps. He Chaired the Senate redistricting Committee and drew the maps; much like Brad Miller did 10 years ago. He lives in Matthews. From what I've seen, he has a good relationship with Myrick.

That sounds like the fix was in from the start.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Myrick is retiring? Interesting.

[MilesC56]

Dreier is retiring.

Not surprising, considering what happened to his district.

[Vasall des Midas]

Dreier is retiring.

Not surprising, considering what happened to his district.

Overdue announcement. No shocker to anybody.

[Sibboleth]

Someone missed a prime opportunity for a little double entendre there. So I'll do it.

David Dreier is out.

[Vasall des Midas]

Normative Penises bow out, according to a mispost in the Snowe thread.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

My Congresswoman, Sue Myrick, is retiring.

Good riddance!

Myrick was part of the class of 1994; as such, she took one of Gingrich's pledges to only serve 7 terms. Of course, she broke that pledge by running in 2008.

Obviously, no chance of a Democratic pickup.

Numbers:

- Even though this district swung 20 points to Obama in 2008 (he lost here 54-45 compared to Kerry's 64-35), the average for local Republicans is almost 60%.

- Kay Hagan also overperformed here; she got 46% and held Dole to only 50%.

- And of course, the bottom fell out for Perdue, as she only got 32% against McCrory.

How did I miss this, and the Shuler retirement?  Two of my congresspeople won't be in office next year

[Landslide Lyndon]

Gary Ackerman retires.

http://www.cityandstateny.com/ackerman-seek-re-election-either/

[Vasall des Midas]

Gary Ackerman retires.

http://www.cityandstateny.com/ackerman-seek-re-election-either/

Unexpected.

Expected a long long time ago before the wiener pics, though.

[Invisible Obama]

Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/

[Vosem]

Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/

Local party committees get to pick a new candidate (though it seems top Republicans are trying to dissuade Johnson). Could it be Bill Brady? I think he lives in this district.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Tim Johnson drops out in IL-13. http://capitolfax.com/2012/04/04/this-just-in-tim-johnson-to-drop-out/

Scandal? or just decided to retire?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

He's a backbencher's backbencher, so boring and nondescript that I can't imagine he would have any kind of scandal going on.

[Sam Spade]

Remember that the primary has already passed here.  Tim Johnson already won it, which likely means he'll get to essentially appoint his successor.

Furthermore, this district is pretty marginal.  Tim Johnson running scared most of the high-profile Dems away, and the primary was won by perennial candidate and general nut David Gill, which means that the Republican is pretty much assured of winning.