7-term Democrats retiring

[Bronx33]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/7term_democrat_retiring.html

Another Democrat has surveyed the political battlefield for 2010 and has decided to retreat.

Vic Snyder (D-AR), a 7 term incumbent, announced his retirement yesterday. From Politico's Scorecard:


Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) announced tonight that he will be retiring at the end of his term, citing the difficult political environment that he would have faced to win an eighth term in the House.
"2010 will be a robust election year during which great forces collide to set the direction for our country for another two years," Snyder said in a statement.

"I have concluded that these election-year forces are no match for the persuasive and powerful attraction of our three one-year old boys under the leadership of their three-year old brother, and I have decided not to run for re-election."

He was one of the most vulnerable House Democrats, with a SurveyUSA poll released today showing him trailing his Republican challenger Tim Griffin by 17 points.

Snyder is the 11th House Democrat to announce his retirement. -- and Republicans are aggressively contesting nine of those open seats. Griffin, a former U.S. Attorney, was mounting a vigorous campaign against Snyder and had already banked over $300,000 for his campaign, according to a GOP source.

The seven-term congressman hadn't been raising any money for a tough re-election and his campaign account was virtually empty.

That last is significant. Liberal activists have refused to donate money to several Blue Dogs and Snyder particularly was in their crosshairs. The fact that Snyder had trouble raising cash points to a problem other Blue Dogs are having with the rabid base of the Democratic party; they aren't liberal enough and the far left doesn't like it.

The GOP has had 14 retirements to date, but most of them are in safe Republican districts. Given how 2010 is shaping up to be a Republican year, the more open seats due to retirement that come up, the closer the GOP will come to flipping the House.

[rastaman]

Why the GOP Shouldn't Get Too Confident

By Ramesh Ponnuru Monday, Jan. 11, 2010

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1952807,00.html#ixzz0cq60ia9C

Republicans can hardly believe their good fortune. First, Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota announced that he would not run for re-election, giving Republicans a good shot at taking his seat. Then the Democratic governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, said he was bowing out. Ditto the Democrats' top candidate for governor in Michigan. And all of it happened on the same day.

The Democratic politicians' decisions to step back both reflect and contribute to the party's grim prospects this November. The weak economy and public anxiety about President Obama's agenda are making Democrats think twice about running. But when they don't run, they make the party's predicament worse. (The exception is when Democratic officeholders are in such bad shape that their retirement actually helps the party come up with a stronger candidate. It was good news for Democrats when Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd called it a career on the same day that his fellow Dems bowed out.)
(See the top 10 political defections.)


Nobody expects the Republicans to take control of the Senate — they're too far down for that — but most observers expect them to make big gains at all levels, and some Republicans even dream of taking control of the House. GOP strategists are especially interested in picking up governor's mansions and state legislatures: the states will soon be drawing the borders of congressional districts for the next decade's elections, and each party wants them drawn to its advantage.

Still, Republicans shouldn't get carried away. There are 10 months to go before the midterm elections, and the political climate can change a lot in that time. Just ask President Obama: according to Gallup, the proportion of Americans who disapprove of his performance jumped from 26% to 42% over the past 10 months. Here are some ways Democrats could still recover from their current woes and Republicans could make the worst of their current good fortune. (See a report card on Obama's first year.)


The economy could revive: The Republicans' chief economic message is that unemployment has kept going up since the Democrats' stimulus passed. But a lot of economic indicators are pointing up, and the unemployment rate may have peaked in October. If job growth is robust in 2010, Republicans could end up looking foolish — or, worse, as though they are rooting against the economy.

The Republican Party is still unpopular: Poll after poll shows that the country has moved right on many issues since Obama was elected. But affection for Republicans has not increased in tandem. Gallup shows that 27% of Americans identified as Republicans at the start of 2009 — and 26% did at the end.
(See pictures of Republican memorabilia.)


Republicans are disorganized: Republicans want nothing so much as a replay of 1994, when they took control of Congress two years into a Democratic presidency. Back then, the party chairman was the formidable Haley Barbour. More than anyone else, he kept the many parts of the GOP — its governors, congressmen, activist groups and business allies — in sync. The current chairman, Michael Steele, is widely seen as a buffoon: a gaffe-prone media hound more interested in collecting speaker fees than in building the party. He does not inspire sufficient confidence to play the coordinating role Barbour once did, and nobody else is in a position to play it.

Republicans have no agenda: Newt Gingrich says that his party's challenge is to go from being an opposition party to an "alternative party." But Republicans have reached no consensus on what to do about the economy. While all of them agree on tax cuts as a slogan, they have no particular legislation in mind. Nor is there any distinctive Republican position on how to regulate the financial industry. Republicans can agree to promote nuclear power, but otherwise have no unified response to global warming. Even on issues where Republicans have come up with alternatives, like health care, the public knows little about them. Republicans still have time to address this deficiency: in the 1994 elections, they waited until September to announce their legislative agenda. But it's not clear that any spadework is being done to prepare for that moment.

The tea parties are not enough: One reason Republicans have not been working on an agenda of their own is that many of them think that they lost power mainly because they increased federal spending and passed bailouts. The success of the tea-party movement — now more popular, by some measures, than either of the parties — makes them think that opposing big government is their ticket back to power. But the movement does not command majority support, and it seems unlikely that Americans will choose a party that stands against big government without also addressing their other concerns.

The better Republicans' prospects become, the more Americans are going to ask whether the party is ready to lead. Chairman Steele recently said that he wasn't sure it was. It was another gaffe; it was also true.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1952807,00.html#ixzz0cq5ogN3q

[Rohirrim]

Oh no! One set of crooks is leaving Washington to be replaced by another set of crooks.

This will change everything!

[Requiem]

The Republicans still have more vacant seats from retiring politicians than Democrats do.

[orinjkrush]

we should check the warehouses and see who's buying the "Ensure" and headed for the boats.

[rastaman]

Oh no! One set of crooks is leaving Washington to be replaced by another set of crooks.

This will change everything!

You know I was thinking now is the time for the Green-Party to make its push/surprise attack and try to fill as many seats in both the Repub & Dem Party. After all during the mid-terms are when you don't need to screw around with the archiac Electoral College. Just a thought.

[cutthemdown]

You know I was thinking now is the time for the Green-Party to make its push/surprise attack and try to fill as many seats in both the Repub & Dem Party. After all during the mid-terms are when you don't need to screw around with the archiac Electoral College. Just a thought.

I think the problem would be that more dems would lose out to a progressive liberal party like the green-party.

[rastaman]

I think the problem would be that more dems would lose out to a progressive liberal party like the green-party.

Exactly, I'd like to see more Liberal Greens unseat the DLC Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats who are beholding to the Corporatocarcy in this country. Republicans, the Clintonians, Corporate Democrats, and Blue Dog Democrats have all been working for and passing legistlation that predominately benfits the Corporations and Wealthiest Amongst Us.

Welcome to the land of SERFDOM and the GILDED AGE OF THE UBER WEALTHY.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Republicans still have more vacant seats from retiring politicians than Democrats do.

Ooops! Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gallup shows that 27% of Americans identified as Republicans at the start of 2009 — and 26% did at the end.



Wow!

Talk about "rats leaving a sinking ship."

I'm surprised TexanBob didn't start a thread about this. ;)

[gyldenlove]

7 term incumbent? he should be leaving because of old age, the man must be 200 years old.

[cutthemdown]

Exactly, I'd like to see more Liberal Greens unseat the DLC Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats who are beholding to the Corporatocarcy in this country. Republicans, the Clintonians, Corporate Democrats, and Blue Dog Democrats have all been working for and passing legistlation that predominately benfits the Corporations and Wealthiest Amongst Us.

Welcome to the land of SERFDOM and the GILDED AGE OF THE UBER WEALTHY.

The only reason blue dog dems won was because they weren't liberal. Not many of those people will now vote more liberal to suit you. They will revert back and vote in republicans.

Like I said in an earlier thread. The DNC took a new approach a few yrs back. To win conservative areas they supported blue dog dems for those areas. Now that those dems not playing ball you want them more liberal. It won't be more liberal replacing them, it will be more conservative.

[Tombstone RJ]

Fact is, there should be term limits for all members of congress. Also, members of congress should not be elected through the general public of their states. This ensures that only the rich will get to Washington DC.

Instead, the members of congress should be elected from their state's house and senate.

So in essence, a person who serves well at the state level will then be elected by his/her peers to represent their state at the national level.

Couple that with term limits, and you have a congress that will actually work.

[TexanBob]

Go GREEN PARTY! Now is your time! C'mon Ralphie, baby! Be loud, be strong.

If there was ever a time for more greenhouse gases, it would be this winter and the GREEN PARTY belches them out like nobody else!

More tofu, Moon Unit?

[Spider]

Fact is, there should be term limits for all members of congress. Also, members of congress should not be elected through the general public of their states. This ensures that only the rich will get to Washington DC.

Instead, the members of congress should be elected from their state's house and senate.

So in essence, a person who serves well at the state level will then be elected by his/her peers to represent their state at the national level.

Couple that with term limits, and you have a congress that will actually work.

meh ......... sounds good , but alot of bull**** ... first off there are already term limits , it is called VOTING.......try it sometime ........ Secondly , if someone is doing a kick as job for my state who in the **** are you or anyone else to tell me who can vote for ?
socialistic commie bastage :D /........... Seriously dont tell me who I can vote for though ......... that is a right in this country , dont go thinking cause you made a flowery speech , yo ucan yank that right from me

[cutthemdown]

I agree with Spider that people getting the deals should love there politicians. It's those of us with ones like Pelosi etc selling us off to them that should be pissed. Hell if calif was exempt though there would be no money period.

Oh well you could always move to Nebraska. But until some court rules its not legal its just politics and that's how it is. People need to get over it and vote people out who pass this bill.

[Tombstone RJ]

meh ......... sounds good , but alot of bull**** ... first off there are already term limits , it is called VOTING.......try it sometime ........ Secondly , if someone is doing a kick as job for my state who in the **** are you or anyone else to tell me who can vote for ?
socialistic commie bastage :D /........... Seriously dont tell me who I can vote for though ......... that is a right in this country , dont go thinking cause you made a flowery speech , yo ucan yank that right from me

The way it is now, Spider, is that rich people can finance a campaign. Senators are rich people who basically buy their way into office. They can afford to hire a big staff, pay for commercials and advertising, etc.

So, who is really running for your House/Senate seats? The people who really love your state and want to help you, or a richy rich guy who wants to control the flow of money to your state and who's ultimate goal is to protect his power and wealth?

Wake up dude.

The way it used to be, and the way the Founding Fathers had it set up is that Congress was assigned by the state's elected officials in the state's house and senate. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE RICH TO SERVE IN YOUR STATE'S HOUSE AND SENATE, BUT YOU DO HAVE TO BE MOTIVATED!

Now, a politician like Hillary Clinton can move to NY, buy her way into the senate, and then use that senate seat as a way to the white house. SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT NY!

It's just a stepping stone for her.

[Tombstone RJ]

Senators and House Reps should not be elected by the general public, period. We should return to the method the Founding Fathers initially had: Work in you state's House and Senate and IF you do a good job, you will then be rewarded with a seat in congress in DC.

The way it is now, ONLY THE WEALTHY GET TO BE SENATORS! They buy their way in, then they stay in for waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

Ted Kennedy? Are you fuggen serious? Ted Kennedy? What a waste of space he was. He was the beneficiary of a wealthy, well connected politifcal family and he became a senator (after he basically killed a woman) and then got re-elected over and over again because A.) HE'S WEALTHY AND HE CAN FINANCE A CAMPAIGN and B.) THERE ARE NO TERM LIMITS FOR MORONS LIKE HIM.

Sorry to point out all the flaws in our system, but Ted FUGGIN Kennedy is THE PERFECT EXAMPLE of the SYSTEM FAILING OVER AND OVER.



Seriously, think about it.

[Tombstone RJ]

Let's look at Martha Coakly, the democratic candidate for the Mass Senate seat:

a little tidbit from Wiki on this fine lady: Coakley admitted to making an honest mistake while filing the financial disclosure forms for her senate run claiming to have no personal assets when in fact she had an account under her husband's name with over $200,000 and a personal IRA containing approximately $12,000

Hmmmmm.... think you can trust her?

How about Brown, the Republican candidate?:

In June 1982, Brown, then a 22-year-old law student at Boston College, "posed nude"[41] or "semi-nude"[11] on the centerfold of Cosmopolitan, with his hand covering his genitals. He won the magazine's "America’s Sexiest Man" contest. When it interviewed him, he referred to himself as "a patriot" and stated that he had political ambitions.[41][11] Brown has also worked as an actor in his early career,[11] appearing in a variety of television commercials.[1]

Brown is married to WCVB-TV reporter Gail Huff. They have two daughters, Ayla Brown, who is an American Idol semi-finalist and star basketball player at Boston College, and Arianna Brown, who is a competitive equestrian and pre-medical student at Syracuse University. They live in Wrentham, Massachusetts.

Brown and his wife own five pieces of real estate, including a 3,000-square-foot home in Wrentham, three condos in Boston, a Rye, New Hampshire home, and a timeshare on the Caribbean island of Aruba.[42]

Hmmmm.... Not sure I like this guy either. Seems like a career politician to me.

But, one of these two will get the senate seat, and I can guarantee you, which ever one gets it, will become more wealthy, more powerful and less connected to you and me....

[Tombstone RJ]

I'll say it again:

CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC!!

They should first serve at the state level!

If they do well at the state level, then they will get voted to the national congress by their peers, not by HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE!

If you want to control who you send to congress in DC, THEN MAKE DAMN SURE YOU TAKE YOUR STATE'S ELECTIONS SERIOUSLY!

Vote for your state's House and Senate reps and then one of those people will go to DC to REPRESENT YOU!

Don't let the rich lawyers buy their way into congress! (both Coakley and Brown are lawyers, YUK!!)!!

[Spider]

The way it is now, Spider, is that rich people can finance a campaign. Senators are rich people who basically buy their way into office. They can afford to hire a big staff, pay for commercials and advertising, etc.

So, who is really running for your House/Senate seats? The people who really love your state and want to help you, or a richy rich guy who wants to control the flow of money to your state and who's ultimate goal is to protect his power and wealth?

Wake up dude.

The way it used to be, and the way the Founding Fathers had it set up is that Congress was assigned by the state's elected officials in the state's house and senate. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE RICH TO SERVE IN YOUR STATE'S HOUSE AND SENATE, BUT YOU DO HAVE TO BE MOTIVATED!

Now, a politician like Hillary Clinton can move to NY, buy her way into the senate, and then use that senate seat as a way to the white house. SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT NY!

It's just a stepping stone for her.

LOL wake up ? jeez dude , just pointed out to you that we already have term limits , you answer back with that crap ?
Get pissed off at Idiot voters that vote party line no matter what ........ Jeez dude , yo uare just as guilty as they are .........

[Spider]

I'll say it again:

CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC!!

They should first serve at the state level!

If they do well at the state level, then they will get voted to the national congress by their peers, not by HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE!

If you want to control who you send to congress in DC, THEN MAKE DAMN SURE YOU TAKE YOUR STATE'S ELECTIONS SERIOUSLY!

Vote for your state's House and Senate reps and then one of those people will go to DC to REPRESENT YOU!

Don't let the rich lawyers buy their way into congress! (both Coakley and Brown are lawyers, YUK!!)!!

so completely remove voters .......... make it like the SCOTUS .......... jeez dude yo udont see the train wreck that would cause ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so completely remove voters .......... make it like the SCOTUS .....

You mean like Bush did?


..... jeez dude yo udont see the train wreck that would cause ?

If not, then he must have been living in a cave from 2001 - 2009. ;D

[Tombstone RJ]

so completely remove voters .......... make it like the SCOTUS .......... jeez dude yo udont see the train wreck that would cause ?

No, what I mean is the voters vote for the state house and reps. So the voters do vote for their reps, but they do it at the state level. This accomplishes a few things:

1.) State level elections now become extremely important because this is where the national representatives come from. You have to vote in the state reps and senators, and then your state congress will vote one of their peers into the national congress.

2.) It filters out the pretenders who are just in it for the money. You don't make any $ being a state senator or rep. You are there because you care about your community and your constituency.

3.) The people who excel at the state level, and who prove their meddle, will then have an opportunity to represent you at the national level. Again, this is a filter system that eliminates the "Kennedy's" of the world who get in on name recognition and personal wealth.

[Spider]

No, what I mean is the voters vote for the state house and reps. So the voters do vote for their reps, but they do it at the state level. This accomplishes a few things:

1.) State level elections now become extremely important because this is where the national representatives come from. You have to vote in the state reps and senators, and then your state congress will vote one of their peers into the national congress.

2.) It filters out the pretenders who are just in it for the money. You don't make any $ being a state senator or rep. You are there because you care about your community and your constituency.

3.) The people who excel at the state level, and who prove their meddle, will then have an opportunity to represent you at the national level. Again, this is a filter system that eliminates the "Kennedy's" of the world who get in on name recognition and personal wealth.

LOL oh yeah , that would be a great plan .................. for me to poop on ........ be more partisan then what it is now ......... our ****ing government works , why d o you commies want ot come n **** up everything I founding fathers did ?

[Tombstone RJ]

LOL oh yeah , that would be a great plan .................. for me to poop on ........ be more partisan then what it is now ......... our ****ing government works , why d o you commies want ot come n **** up everything I founding fathers did ?

This is the way the Founding Fathers had it set up. So we would be going back to the original way the national congress was set up.

If you think the "government works" then good for you. I'm for less government, not more.

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL oh yeah , that would be a great plan .................. for me to poop on ........ be more partisan then what it is now ......... our ****ing government works , why d o you commies want ot come n **** up everything I founding fathers did ?

Seriously. Go get a GED or something.