My RSS Feeds
17 Republican Politicians Will Not Run For Re-election In 2008 - GOP Running Scared! Is Democratic Tsunami Coming? - RI10
17 Republican
Politicians Will Not
Run For Re-election
In 2008 - GOP
Running Scared!
Is Democratic
Tsunami Coming? -
RI10
CAFFERTY: I mean this -- this whole thing about this Armenian resolution is just silly.
I mean why go out of your way to make these people angry?
I don't understand.
"I don't like being in the minority" -- we're quoting here -- "it's not that much fun. The prospects for the future don't look that good."
The speaker is Republican Congressman Ray LaHood. He's talking in an interview to "Los Angeles Times". LaHood is going to retire at the end of this term.
And he's not alone. So far, 17 Republican lawmakers have announced they're not going to run for re-election in 2008 -- five Senators, 12 House members. Two of the House members are running for higher office.
It sounds like a lot when you consider that only two Democrats have said they're not running for re-election, and that's only because they're seeking higher office.
It all adds up to a big challenge facing the Republican Party next year. Among other things, Republicans are trailing Democrats by a lot when it comes to the all important fundraising, which means the Republicans will ultimately have to defend more House and Senate seats with less money. And in our system, that doesn't tend to work so well.
Some experts say it's no surprise that many Republicans are thinking about leaving the game now. President Bush's popularity is low, Iraq's a mess, the U.S. economy could be headed into a recession at some point.
So the question is this -- what does it say about the 2008 campaign when 17 Republican lawmakers have already announced they're not running for re-election?
E-mail your thoughts to caffertyfile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/caffertyfile.
What did the guy say?
I don't like being in the minority. It's no fun.
BLITZER: And I've been covering Congress for a long time and I've spoken to minority members and majority members. It's a lot more fun when you're in charge than when somebody -- than when you're not. That's a fact of life.
CAFFERTY: That's just the way it is.
BLITZER: Thanks, Jack, very much.
CAFFERTY: OK.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Let's do that.
What does it say about it the 2008 campaign when 17 republican lawmakers have announced that they're not going run for re-election?
John writes, "If this trend turns out to be true, it means after 2008 we can actually start taking back this country for the little guy. The standard of living for us middle classers has steadily eroded while the Republicans have been in charge. They totally screwed up our relations with the rest of the world and pretty much abandoned poor people altogether. Give the Democrats solid majorities and the presidency and maybe the country will go back to being the caring and compassionate nation we once were."
Andy in Kentucky, "I think it shows the American people are becoming disenchanted with the Republican Party. It shows how far the party has truly drifted from it roots and how much it has to be changed."
Ruth in California, "Who cares? There's no difference between the parties, just two heads of the same animal. It's a lot easier to debate something that happened 100 years ago (Armenian genocide) than deal with current problems. It's time for a third party."
Tom in Minnesota, "It means 17 fewer people to roll over and play dead every time Bush snaps his fingers".
Jannan in Texas, "Is it not human nature to run when trouble is sensed? I'd be more curious to see what becomes of those 17 seats and whether or not they can be used for something other than bipartisan political bickering".
And Don in South Carolina, "It means they’re running for higher ground; a tsunami is coming."
If you didn't see your e-mail here, go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile we post more online along with video clips if you have nothing else to look at in your house at night.
Wolf.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/16/sitroom.02.html
Retirements beginning to put House out of GOP's grasp
By Bill Schneider
CNN senior political analyst
updated 6:12 a.m. EDT, Tue October 16, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives should be very vulnerable. But it's not -- at least, not right now.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's hold on the gavel is pretty slim. Republicans need 17 more seats to retake the majority. In 2006, Democrats gained 30.
When a party wins a big victory in Congress -- as the Democrats did in 2006 -- they usually have trouble holding those gains at the next election. Right now, for example, Democrats hold 61 House seats in districts that voted for President Bush in 2004.
Republicans have only 8 representatives from districts that voted for John Kerry.
So it looks like Democrats have a lot more vulnerable seats to defend in the 2008 elections. But analysts say otherwise.
"A lot of those members are veteran, long-time Democrats who have been in those seats and they are not vulnerable", said Lauren Whittington, a senior staff writer at the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. "You know, people who are in Republican States but who have been there for 20 years, 30 years, and they have seniority.”
Those Democrats include Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, whose district voted 64 percent for Bush. He's the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee with more than 30 years of seniority.
Democrat Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina is another example. He's a 25-year veteran and chairman of the House Budget Committee. His district voted 57 percent for Bush.
Republicans may actually have a larger number of vulnerable House seats to defend next year.
So far this year, 12 Republican representatives have announced they are not running for re-election next year, either because they are retiring or they are running for another office.
One reason the Republicans are leaving is because it's no fun to be in the minority in the House. The minority party in the Senate has some power. The minority party in the House is powerless.
Tabacco: Reading between the lines – “No fun” means graft $$$ slow down to a trickle. After all, why do you think they went after these jobs in the first place! Is anyone naïve enough to believe all these politicos want is to be re-elected perpetually for cigarette money salaries when any decent lawyer can make 10 times what they get for serving in the House of Representatives.
Some big-name Republicans are leaving, including former Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, who said when she announced her retirement in August "there is no perfect time, no good time to leave a job you really love".
Her seat is No. 1 on the list of Democratic targets, and "Republicans don't even have a candidate there right now", Roll Call's Whittington said.
Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minnesota, said, "I'm burned out. I'm tired", when he announced he was leaving in September, but Minority Leader John Boehner has been trying to get Ramstad to reconsider his decision, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune reported earlier this month
"The party knows how much money they're going to have to spend" to defend Ramstad's district, Whittington said.
Six of the 12 Republican seats where the incumbent is not running for re-election are in districts that either voted for Kerry or went for Bush by less than 10 points.
Just two Democratic House members are not running. Both are in districts that Kerry carried by more than 10 points.
All those open seats are a big problem for Republicans. In 2006, open House seats were four times as likely to switch parties than seats where an incumbent was seeking re-election.
It costs money to defend those seats. Money Republicans don't have.
"The House Republican campaign committee only has very little money, about $2 million in the bank", Whittington said. "Democrats have a little more than 10 times that. So, money is a huge issue'.'
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/16/schneider.house
Tabacco: NET GOSSIP – Take with a grain of salt & an open mind!
This is another indicator of the GOP's prospects in 2008. So far we the names that have either announced retirement or on "retirement watch" lists that I have seen are Pryce (OH), Hastert (IL), LaHood (IL), Saxton (NJ), Young (AK), Pickering (MI), Renzi (AZ), Lewis (CA), Doolittle (CA), Young (FL), McHugh (NY), Regula (OH), Cubin (WY), and Jo Ann Davis (VA). To be fair, not all of those names have committed to retiring. But their fundraising efforts as well as their lack of organizing for reelection in most cases signals that most of those folks won't be in the 2008 race. That means the RNC and the RCCC are going to have to not only recruit top tier candidates for those seats (which is proving not so easy for the GOP these days) but also come up with a fairly large sum of cash to make those open seat elections competitive (also not so easy for the GOP these days).
Give the Democratic bench and the money advantages being established by the DCCC the outlook gets bleaker and bleaker for the GOP. And the traditional announcement month for retirements (September) hasn't even arrived yet.
John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Thursday, August 16, 2007 6:10 PM)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/16/320451.aspx
Congressperson State
Terry Everett Alabama
J. Dennis Hastert Illinois (former Speaker)
David Lee Hobson Ohio (9 terms)
Duncan Hunter California
Ray LaHood Illinois
Stevan E. Pearce New Mexico (running for Senate)
Chip Pickering Mississippi (greener pastures: lobbyist)
Deborah D. Pryce Ohio
Jim Ramstad Minnesota
Ralph S. Regula Ohio
Richard G. Renzi Arizona
H. J. “Jim” Saxton New Jersey
Tom Tancredo Colorado (Presidential Candidate)
Gerald C. Weller Illinois
Heather Wilson New Mexico (running for Senate)
Senator State
A. Wayne Allard Colorado
Samuel D. Brownback Kansas
Larry E. Craig Idaho/still foot-tapping in men’s rooms Pete Domenici New Mexico
Chuck Hagel Nebraska
Kay Bailey Hutchison Texas
John William Warner Virginia
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G07/open.phtml
If the figures don’t add up, don’t blame me. My totals add up to 22. I’m not saying I’m right and they’re wrong. The problem is this: Every source says 17, but they don’t list which 17 they mean. I guess they are hedging their bets. Tabacco likes to see a list. I guess it’s my mathematical background. I used multiple sources, and the information is not always up-to-date. Let the Reader decide which 17 or 22 fit the bill. And remember that men as well as women can change their minds.
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World
So Hillary Clinton planted a "questioner" at Democratic debate, who asked a
preselected question. I do not support Clinton in the Democratic Primaries,
but what is so horrible about that when Bush preselects the questioners,
only allows supporters inside when he is on stage and the Republicans, when
they controlled the 109th Congress, evicted Democrats from both votes and
deliberations.