US Senator John Breaux Seriously Considering Retirement As Early As This Year.

It's Only Politics ^ | August 21, 2003 | It's Only Politics

[Pubbie]

John For Senate...

A senior Democratic source has revealed to The Louisiana Weekly that U.S. Senator John Breaux is seriously considering resigning his seat if a Democrat wins the Louisiana Governor's Mansion in November. The senior senator would do so to expedite the appointment of conservative Seventh District Democratic Congressman Christopher John to the position.

According to the insider, Breaux worries that the Republicans would have an advantage in 2004 if he chooses not to run, and the only candidate capable of withstanding a GOP challenge is a Blue Dog-like John who has repeatedly supported the Bush administration.

Appointing the Congressman to the seat would give John an advantage over likely Republican challenger David Vitter, and, more importantly said the source, would forestall challenges from more liberal (and less electable) candidates.

Breaux has repeatedly expressed a desire to leave the Senate over the past several years. First, he entertained the idea of becoming Ambassador to France under Bill Clinton. Then, Breaux himself considered a run for governor before demurring.

The senator has told friends that he wants "to make a little money." He has observed the success that Rep. Bob Livingston has made as a lobbyist, and sees the potential of cashing in on his extensive network of inside influence.

A Democratic governor would give Breaux the opportunity to resign the seat immediately, and said the source, the senator believes that several Democrats have a real chance of success this year.

"I'll make an announcement after the governor's race," Breaux said shortly before the August recess to the Hill.

Still, though, keeping Louisiana in the Democratic column might do little to turn the Senate away from Republican control.

Charlie Cook of the National Journal magazine said, "In the Senate, once you get past the 51-49 split, both the numbers and the circumstances begin to work against Democrats. Not only do Democrats have more seats up than Republicans, but these 19 Democratic seats are far more vulnerable than the GOP 15. Of the Democratic seats, 10 are in states that George W. Bush carried in that razor-thin 2002 election, while only three of the 15 Republican seats are in states won by Al Gore. History tells us that presidential election returns are a very good, though admittedly not perfect, proxy for later Senate results, particularly in open seats where most turnovers occur."

"Then there are the individual circumstances," Cook said. "History tells us that presidential election returns are a very good, though admittedly not perfect, proxy for later Senate results, particularly in open seats where most turnovers occur. Then there are the individual circumstances. Democrats start out with far more seats that are in real danger based on who is or is likely to run.

"In Georgia, despite the fact that Democratic incumbent Zell Miller announced in early January that he would not seek re-election, Democrats have yet to come up with a well-known, first-tier replacement. At this point, only an unknown state legislator has announced. Republicans have an abundance of takers, including two sitting members of Congress."

"In South Carolina, six-term Democratic incumbent Sen. Ernest Hollings' announcement last Monday that he would retire at the end of this term was widely expected. The state has become increasingly conservative and Republican and is now the toughest state in the South for Democrats. Even if Hollings had opted to run again, he would have likely faced a very difficult, probably even-money race. After all, he had his hands full in his last two re-election efforts against relatively lightweight opponents. Now that the seat is open, Democrats face an uphill battle to keep it in their column."

Add potential open seats in Florida and North Carolina with the Presidential candidacies of Bob Graham and John Edwards, and Louisiana may have little overall effect on the controlling party in the Senate.

[Pubbie]

Breaux *Ping*!

[ConservativeDude]

don't count Vitter out even if this little inside baseball trade happens

[Pubbie]

As long as Breaux does retire, I wouldn't worry too much about Chris John.

Breaux is unbeatable in Louisiana, John is not.

And the Democrats winning the Governorship is far from a foregone conclusion.

Bobby Jindal is in second place right now and he should make it into the "Finals".

[bigeasy_70118]

Bobby Jindal is in second place right now and he should make it into the "Finals".

Jindal really out classed the field in last night's debate.

BTW, I thought it was interesting that two most left leaning democrats (leach and Ieyoub) were against the open primary system. I guess Edwards didn't do them any favors, huh?

[RicocheT]

"Breaux worries that the Republicans would have an advantage in 2004 if he chooses not to run"

Breaux can't trust the people of Louisiana to pick who governs them, his Democrats have to use maneuver and dodges to stay in power.

[Pubbie]

"Jindal really out classed the field in last night's debate."

If Jindal wins the Governorship, then this throws a wrench into the Democrats plans.

It will force Chris John into a primary against much more Liberal democrats where John will probably loose.

"I guess Edwards didn't do them any favors, huh?"

I guess not hehehe...

[CommerceComet]

Why is Breaux so loyal to the Democrat Party when he disagrees with it so often? It seems to me that trying to keep the seat Democrat only furthers the extreme liberal nonsense that Breaux disapproves of.

[alnick]

I'm one of his constituents. I sent him the following "love note":

I just read an article which claims that you are considering retirement only if a democrat governor is elected so that you can subvert the election process by creating a situation in which your replacement would be appointed by a fellow democrat rather than allowing the people of Louisiana to exercise their right to select your replacement.

Haven't the democrats done enough to subvert the election process in the past few years? First with Al Gore trying to overturn the election results in Florida followed by Lautenberg and the liberal state supreme court replacing an unpopular Torricelli after the legal deadline to do so, and now in California by scrambling to prevent the people to exercise their (California) constitutional right to recall a democrat governor who has failed them?

Now you, who I consider to be one of the less egregious democrats, are plotting to disenfranchise every voter in the state of Louisiana.

At least y'all are consistent.

[Cicero]

Breaux lied his head off to help re-elect pro-abortionist Senator Landrieux. I hope he's satisfied with what he accomplished. It's clear that he puts the Democrat Party far ahead of his supposed conservatism.

[Wright is right!]

"Of the Democratic seats, 10 are in states that George W. Bush carried in that razor-thin 2002 election..."

Charlie Cook seems to have forgotten that the razor thin election President Dubya won was in 2000. The 2002 elections were a GOP romp.

Michael

[Theodore R.]

The new governor does not take office until March, I believe. So Breaux will have to wait a few months before exiting. I am pretty sure that he will be able to pull off his scheme, for people in LA will do anything Breaux tells them.

[jmaroneps37]

You see gang, this is another example of how the rats "misunderestimate" us. They don't want to act like grown ups and recognize that we, the country's adults are just as angry, if not more angry about the crooked rat bull shiite from the last few years. They are like your kid who smashes a neighbor's window. When you go to court, you are the one who gets chewed out. When you get home and ground him, he gets mad at you and can't imagine why you are mad at him.
In Florida, the rats got caught trying to steal the election. Now THEY think THEY are entitled to be angry at US. WRONG kiddies. In NJ and MINN and Mo. the evil donkey cheated and laughed and we used that motivation to win elections. Rats you aint seen nothin' yet!

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Why is Breaux so loyal to the Democrat Party when he disagrees with it so often?"

---

If he's going to make any money as a lobbyist, he needs to keep the RAT Senators and Congressmen on his good side. Plus, if the GOP picks up close to 60 seats in the Senate, why would you spend a lot of money lobbying the Democrats, who would be a powerless minority? Breaux needs to keep the Senate close so that he can cash in.

BTW, isn't Breaux's son making huge bucks as a lobbyist? If so, why did the reporter feel the need to point to Livingston as the person Breaux wants to imitate?

[AuH2ORepublican]

Pubbie, I guess you were right about Breaux waiting to announce his retirement until he sees who becomes governor, not merely waiting for the gubernatorial election to be over in order not to disrupt it. (We discussed the issue in this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/958646/posts) I thought it was the latter, which would imply that he was retiring either way. Since it's the former, he will only step down in March if a RAT wins; otherwise, he won't run for reelection but stick around until 2005 so that the Republican governor can't name Vitter as his replacement.

[Pubbie]

"Since it's the former, he will only step down in March if a RAT wins; otherwise, he won't run for reelection but stick around until 2005 so that the Republican governor can't name Vitter as his replacement."

Jindal has to win to prevent Breaux from having a Democrat Guv from appointing John to the seat.

If Jindal wins, Breaux looks like he'll not run for reelection anyway (This article makes it sound like Breaux is sick of the Senate and can't wait to get out).

Jindal winning will also force John to go into a primary against other more liberal Democrats, where John might well win.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Jindal winning will also force John to go into a primary against other more liberal Democrats, where John might well win."

---

That assumes that the courts will strike down the LA jungle primary. If not, then the Senate election will be held just like last year's, and if several Democrats run against Chris John, the one with the most votes would most likely go on to the run-off against Vitter or whoever is the GOP frontunner (unless the RATs are so badly splintered that the GOP places two candidates in the run-off). Since John would be able to obtain votes from Republicans as well as Democrats, I don't think a Cleo Fields or Donna Brazile will be able to get more votes than him and go on to the run-off.

If I was a betting man, I would wager that Breaux's seat will be decided in December of 2004 in a run-off between John and Vitter. While Vitter is a stronger candidate than Terrell was last year, John is closer to the LA mainstream than was Landrieu. Vitter can win, but it will not be easy (and in December, Bush won't be on the ballot and thus will not have coattails). Our best hope is that a John beats out a black Democrat for the spot in the run-off and blacks "stay home in droves."

[AuH2ORepublican]

Pubbie, I just realize this article is almost a month old. Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves. It's not like John has launched a Senate bid during the past 4 weeks or anything.

[Pubbie]

"Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves."

It's only a month old.

John hasn't launched a campaign yet because he might be anointed La Senator by a Democratic governor.

This article fits in well with other articles that have been posted recently.

Also it's been well known for a couple of years that Breaux is sick of the Senate.

[Impy]

It's too bad he didn't take Bush's offer to be Sec. of Energy. :-)