Posted on 01/26/2013 8:46:09 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj
Edited on 01/26/2013 9:22:59 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
CUMMING (AP) - Iowa Senator Tom Harkin said he will not seek re-election in 2014.
The 73-year-old told The Associated Press in an interview, "It's just time to step aside."
By the time Harkin would finish a sixth term, he would be 81 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at kwwl.com ...
Harkin has been a fake Vietnam veteran; a supporter of Viet Cong propagandist Don Luce (Con Son Island “tiger cages” hoax); a strong supporter of the marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua (along with Kerry and Chris Dodd); big on unilateral disarmament; and generally against America as a leader of the Free World.
He has the distinction of being one of the top 10 members of Congress who could be charged with Treason.
Stay on his ass until he physically leaves Congress. Tell the truth about him so that he can’t write his own leftist version of history.
Some good information on Harkin’s communist support activities can be found at www.keywiki.org, “www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org” and in Steve Powell’s masterful study of the Marxist “Institute for Policy Studies”, entitled “Covert Cadre”, 1986. among other sources.
Take back the truth!
It’s one great thing this lying phony who voted for every bad idea along his prog way is getting out. Too bad we pay his retirement for having hurt this country so much.
Vilsak is the name that comes to mind for the Dems.
Vilsak has been resurrected into a big deal as AG secretary.
I would tend to doubt a Republican’s ability to win against Vilsak.
I have an open mind as to GOP prospects, but Iowa statewide political history has made me skeptical.
Harkin wouldn’t have been primaried...he’s a liberal Dem icon, no dem would’ve primaried him. That’s what Republican Tea Partiers do to their rinos, not what Democrats do. Democrats circle the wagons on their liberal icons, they don’t primary them.
Perhaps you are thinking about the possibility that Harkin would have lost to a Republican. That wouldn’t have been in a primary, that would’ve been in a general election.
The point of my post was, I’m afraid that the Dems will run Tom Vilsak in Harkins’s place, and I’m afraid Vilsak, the former governor and current Obama AG secretary, would win.
Vilsack’s “popularity” may be as shallow as Chet Culver’s. They tried to run his wife against King and she still failed to win. I think come 2014 and the 6-year fatigue that Vilsack will have a highly unpopular regime tied around his neck.
Forgot to mention, too, that Vilsack is no youngster. For a state that values seniority in its Senators, the optimal age to run is in your 40s. Chuck Grassley was 47 in 1980 and Harkin was 44 in 1984 when each won their first Senate terms. Vilsack will be 64 in 2014. To accumulate Harkin’s seniority as of January 2013 (not even counting his prior 10 years in the House), Vilsack would have to serve until he was 92 (2042).
As for the 4 Congressmembers that might run, the 2 Democrats would be 57 (Bruce Braley) and 62 (David Loebsack) and the 2 Republicans would be 66 (Tom Latham) and 65 (Steve King) in 2014. Current GOP Gov. Branstad will be 68 and Dem ex-Gov. Chet Culver would just be a few weeks short of 49 at the start of the 2015 session. Aside from Braley and Culver, all the other leading figures are in their 60s.
Someone mentioned the new GOP Sec of State Matt Schultz, and he’d be just 35. From a gaining seniority perspective, the GOP may be best off by running him rather than a 60-something Congressman.
That’s a good point about the age of potential candidates; I wasn’t aware that Latham was that old (or King, for that matter). Sounds like we should take a look at Matt Schultz, although youth by itself won’t win the election (think of Mandel in OH).
Looks like Matt Schultz pretty much came out of nowhere (which is maybe a good thing in this era of despised career politicians). He doesn’t have a voting record or tenure in office that can be exploited by an opponent.
He assumed office in 2010, a very good year for the GOP.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Matt_Schultz
http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/73695/matt-schultz#.UQUwEOimBbk
Seems his campaign website is not fully active (issue positions, etc.), although you can donate or sign up.
One of the sources above mentions that he’s been hard nosed about cleaning up the voter rolls.
Hmmm, this wouldn’t by any chance have anything to do with the heat the old crook is feeling over the scandal about his wife being a lobbyist for Herbalife and his support of legislation that helps them out, would it? Nah, how could I think such a thing about our self-sacrificing public servants?
“These men (in government), in point of fact, are seldom if ever moved by anything rationally describable as public spirit; there is actually no more public spirit among them than among so many burglars or street-walkers. Their purpose, first, last and all the time, is to promote their private advantage, and to that end, and that end alone, they exercise all the vast powers that are in their hands...” ~ H.L. Mencken
I had forgotten how old Latham and King were, too, until I went to review their bios. I thought they were at least 10-15 years younger. Latham does seem like a safer bet of the two men, but between his age and the fact he’d be trading off 20 years of seniority in the majority to become a Senate freshman (and undetermined which party will be the majority in 2015, as we’d still have to win 6 seats), I can understand why he’d take a pass. King will have had 12 years, but he’d seem more game for such a run.
Looking at some of the other statewide officeholders, aside from Branstad, you have his Lieutenant Governor, Kim Reynolds, who is in her early 50s. Running a woman in a state that has had few females in federal office is a possibility. The downside is that she’s a recovering alcoholic and that might be used against her. I also don’t know how she is ideologically.
State Auditor David Vaudt is another. He’s in his 3rd term, but he’ll also be 61 in 2014. I don’t know much about him.
Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey is around 50, and in his second term. Noteworthy is that he managed to win the office in 2006 in a disastrous election cycle (the seat was open, but hadn’t been won by a Republican in 24 years). He was the top vote-getter statewide in 2010, winning by a commanding 26%.
Getting back to Schultz, he did beat a Dem incumbent in 2010 (I’m guessing one of the Soros-backed Dem Secs of State that won their jobs in 2006). The comparison to Josh Mandel can only relate to one of youth. Where it stops is that Mandel had to run against a well-funded incumbent Senator. This is an open seat. If Mandel hadn’t had to face Brown, it’s very possible he would’ve won. Since Harkin will be out of the way, it’s likely better for us.
Of course, it’s the open seats that we must target aggressively. We still have that appalling impediment that has not been broken since 1980... that of taking down more than 2 incumbent Dem Senators in a cycle.
How about Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds? She was Clarke County Treasurer for years, had a conservative voting record in her two years in the state senate, and will only be 55 in 2014 (and looks 35—she’s still a babe). http://votesmart.org/candidate/103324/kim-reynolds
Probably her biggest negative is the fact that she’s a recovering alcoholic who twice was arrested for DUI (most recently in 2000), but I assume that she has a good story about how she finally beat her addiction and how she’s a stronger person now. And given that she voted against a ban on texting while driving (which passed easily in the senate), I think she won’t be cowered into going along with the majority against her principles by people trying to exploit her past.
None of those are the ones being talked about at this point, at least among the folks I know across the state.
Latham had a tough time winning the new district against Boswell, and it doesn’t look like he’s up for another tough fight.
King won, but his campaign sputtered a bit, and he got bloodied up by Vilsack. His margin wasn’t exactly what they hoped for, in terms of the prospect of a future Senate run.
It doesn’t appear to me that either of them wants to risk their safe seats in the House. Historically, they both have a strong tendency to play it safe, and I doubt they’re going to change much now.
Who knows, though? I’ve been wrong about such things before.
Let me say this, though:
Steve King is one of the most capable legislators I’ve ever known. His personal gifts and capacities are substantial.
He’s also a great campaigner, when he has his heart in it.
If he decides to get in, I seriously doubt anyone can challenge him.
And he would be likely to do far better in the state at large than many imagine.
Again, because I think his heart WOULD be in it.
I fully agree with you regarding Steve King. It is far more important for the conservatives to take a senate seat and work on grooming a viable house candidate to replace him.
Harkin is signaling that he is going to be the good leftist soldier and back Obama’s gun grab efforts and give him cover on his wishes over the next 2 years. Could mean Obama will reward him with a cabinet post for the last 2 years of this catastrophe. Harkin is a radical true believer. His rousing attack speech at the Sen. Paul Wellstone Memorial Pep Rally was one for the ages. This guy is a true POS.
I'm sure you are correct. I don't have a preference yet and being from Missouri, I'm not hoping to push anyone from the outside. I was asking for contacts so that my group members could volunteer to help. I've had trouble getting a response from websites that say they are Iowa Tea Party groups. At this stage, simple corispondance would be an improvement.
The conventional wisdom is that Latham would be our toughest candidate. It's a waiting game now. http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/kevins-korner-adieu-commie-tommy-list-of-contenders-and-mahaska-mess/#comment-780073037
My personal opinion is that it is so necessary to pick up this seat and they're all good people there is no point in trying to pick a big fight over a primary.
I only care about one thing--defeating the RAT so I want the one most likely to win.
I'd wait until the primary is over and then start full speed ahead to defeat the RAT, be it Vilsack or Braley.
“Iowa has long been the most politically bi-polar state...they’ve been sending Harkin and Grassley back to the senate for decades...”
When I left there in 1962 they were hard core -R. Sad to see them go downhill.
saw on the local news (waterloo/CF) that a**hat Braley is thinking of running for the empty senate seat after harkin leaves.
in my perfect world, braley runs for that senate seat, and loses, which forces him to give up his house seat, which is won by Lange.
Ideally, we could rid ourselves of harkin AND braley in one shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.