 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Harkin won’t seek re-election — open thread
So, how about having a little political bombshell dropped on your lazy Saturday?
AP’s Tom Beaumont had the scoop that shook the land between two rivers:
CUMMING, Iowa (AP) – U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin said Saturday he will not seek a sixth term in 2014, a decision that frees a new generation of Iowa Democrats to seek higher office and eases some of the burden Republicans face in retaking the Senate.
Harkin, chairman of an influential Senate committee, announced his decision during an interview with The Associated Press, and said the move could surprise some.
But the 73-year-old cited his age – he would be 81 at the end of a sixth term – as a factor in the decision, saying it was time to pass the torch he has held for nearly 30 years.
“I just think it’s time for me to step aside,” Harkin told the AP.
Just when we were marveling at all our piled up Senate seniority, our “junior” senator decides to end his 40-year Congressional career. I’d have been less surprised to show up at the State Fair and find out there are no corn dogs.
Harkin says he wants to spend more time with his….yeah, yeah, yeah. So who’s going to run?
Whirling speculation on that question has now reduced visibility on area highways to below a quarter mile, according to the state patrol.
First, there are the easy, immediate guesses. Democratic U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley is a natural possibility. On the Republican side a lot of people are talking about U.S. Rep. Tom Latham and U.S. Rep. Steve King. Although much of the speculation on King seems to center on whether a run by the party’s far right darling could dash their chances of picking up a critical open seat.
Breaking speculation from WaPo’s The Fix:
The big question for Republicans is whether Rep. Steve King (R) will run. The outspoken, staunchly conservative tea-party favorite has at least been thinking about it (based on his public comments). While King has a loyal base, he would likely have a hard time extending his reach beyond it in a general election, particularly in the eastern part of the state. Even Gov. Terry Branstad (R) has acknowledged as much.
From an electability standpoint, the GOP would be better served to take a look at Rep. Tom Latham, a more moderate Republican with the potential for broader appeal. Another name that has been tossed around in GOP circles is Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds.
On the D side, The Fix also wonders about Tom Vilsack. Seems like he won some statewide races around these parts once upon a time. Maybe his wife could also run for governor. It could be a Vilsackian overload.
The Iowa Republican’s Craig Robinson tweets that former GOP U.S. attorney Matt Whitaker may be interested. Used to play for the Hawks.
Politico seems to suggest every Republican in Iowa might run:
Other potential GOP candidates who might seriously consider running include former Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn, Iowa State Sen. Brad Zaun, Secretary of State Matt Schultz, social conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats, Republican Party of Iowa co-chair David Fischerand state GOP finance chairman Drew Ivers (a co-chair of Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign in Iowa).
Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey could get in, but he’s seen as having a better shot at running for governor in 2018.
There’s also some buzz about state Rep. Pat Grassley, the 29-year-old grandson of longtime incumbent Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley. But he could also run for one of the vacant House seats.
And, of course, if Latham, King and Braley jump in, that leaves three open House seats. And what might have been a fairly ho-hum 2014 cycle turns into a Category 5 political tsunami with a side of holy cats.
John Deeth wonders if my own state senator might be interested in the First District:
That Iowa-Mississippi no women thing is huge for party activists. And Democrats are well situated with a potential candidate with 100% name ID in Cedar Rapids and Waterloo, and a proven track record of winning in a light red district. And if, God forbid, she wouldn’t win, she doesn’t have to give up the present job. Say hello to Congresswoman Liz Mathis.
Then there’s the race for governor, which some speculated Braley might join. Now it’s likely open wide to the Jack Hatches, Tyler Olsons and Rob Hoggs of the world. But it will probably play second fiddle to Senatageddon 14.
This announcement is so big that its implications have implications. Oh, and there’s control of the United States Senate hanging in the balance with races like this one.
Also, one of Iowa’s all time political titans is leaving the scene. Here’s Harkin’s statement:
CUMMING, Iowa – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement on his plans for the future, including his decision not to seek reelection for his U.S. Senate term expiring in 2014. In doing so, he thanked Iowans for their dedication over the course of his career in public service and outlined his agenda for the HELP Committee over the next two years:
“I have been thinking hard about the decision whether to run for a sixth term in the United States Senate for a number of months – even more these last few weeks. I’ve reached a decision, and what I’ve decided really boils down to two things,” said Harkin. “First, I’m going to fulfill a promise that I made to my wife Ruth, and that I also made to myself. It’s a promise that we’re going to do certain things together – and that we’re going to live together in a way we’ve often talked about – before it gets too late. That’s a decision I believe many Iowans can relate to, either because of their own circumstances, or perhaps those of their parents. I have the privilege to be able to make this decision on my own terms, which not everyone can, and I’m deeply grateful to the people of Iowa that I do have that opportunity. I’ve been extremely fortunate. I was born here in Cumming in modest circumstances. My father was a coal-miner with just an 8th-grade education. My mother arrived to this country as an immigrant with virtually no earthly possessions. This state and this country have allowed me to enjoy a life and career beyond anything I imagined as a boy or young man.
“Second, I’m 73 years old right now. At the end of this term I’ll be 75. When the current Congress is over, I will have served in the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for a total of 40 years. After 40 years, I just feel it’s somebody else’s turn. I can’t put into words what an honor it is to serve Iowa. And I don’t by any means plan to retire completely from public life at the end of this Congress. But I am going to make way for someone new in this Senate seat. I think that is right not just for me, but for Iowa, as well.”
I’m sure you have reactions, speculation, etc.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
This is good news; although far better news will come when Grassley leaves office. These pols have come to exemplify the triumph of Party over Nation, Harkin to a lesser degree than Grassley.
I predict Steve King will be the Akin/Mourdock of 2014 and Bruce Braley will be our next Senator. This will be fun to watch.
Rich,..sorry to burst your bubble–but Steve King won’t run for the Senate. King knows full well he’s in a safe Congressional seat AND he’s in the majority in the House–on three major committee–Judiciary, Ag, and Small Business.
His seniority serves him well on those committees–so he’s not going anywhere.
Steve King has been hinting at a Senate run.
LOL on what planet? King’s made no hints of that at all–especially considering he just won re-election to the new IA-4 seat.
So keep on dreaming–Steve King won’t be running for Senate in 2014. Being in the majority in the House has its privileges–especially when you are on the three major committees that King is on.
If anyone watched “(Bill) Moyers and Company” on IPT late Saturday night or late Sunday morning the 1st subject was the $500 million loophole given to biotech giant Amgen during the New Years Eve “fiscal cliff” agreement. Moyer’s guest was a senator who is enraged about this fiasco and is making efforts to “get the money back” to the American taxpayers. It will be interesting to see if Sen. Grassley will join in the efforts. Note that a little research shows he received a substantial contribution from Amgen prior to his last election.
Cedric, Lets be clear, they all do it. Only 36% of Braleys campaign contributors were from Iowans. He raised over 718K from lobbyists and lawyers, so that should give you an idea of who butters his bread. Also, need you be reminded of Solyndra? Cause I would be happy to do it.
You need to watch “Boom Town” tonight on Fox and then get back to us on who has a monopoly on kick backs. Tea anyone?
King is a fiscal conservative and we need him in congress. I haven’t followed Latham that much but I’m sure he would be better than a lap dog named Braley for a “do nothing” Harry Reid.
First of all, I never even mention Braley. The intent of my comment, if you didn’t grasp it, was the corruption of our political process by money and that corruption encompasses both parties ( a Democratic senator was involved in the “Amgen deal”). Just one example of corruption by special interests and their money was mentioned in the Moyer’s show: Amgen has 74 (that’s 74 !) lobbyists in Washington. As far as “Boom Town” (whatever that is — if it’s on Fox news I’m sure it’s totally objective with no political slant ) we don’t have dish/cable TV — would mostly be a waste of money for us. We’ll see what Grassley does regarding the Amgen deal, if anything.
I believe Harken lost much of his original fire to be our Senator long ago, and as for Grassley, in reality he is a moderate Steve King, and almost as often an embarrassment to the state. Democrats will be hard pressed to field a candidate since they have so few stars among the people they currently field. The “Big Lug” Culver, would be hard pressed to run for any office and frankly hasn’t the inside track his father had. Vilsack, he already is the go fetch boy for Monsanto and quite frankly got out of the favorite son business running for president early enough, he fortunately didn’t show what he really lacked as a politician. The woman thing would be a plus, but Christy doesn’t have enough power to pull it off from my humble opinion. The wealthy and powerful who would love to have Senator as a moniker such as Jack Hatch, also carry around a lethal set of enemies that in a tight race can undo you in a hurry. Wouldn’t it be great if a third party candidate would attempt to fill the bill and create a space right in the middle of all this partisan chaos? I firmly believe if we are ever to get the government moving again, the only way it will happen is to get people to start to compromise and start moving legislation forward. Creating that third party window would start the process moving again and bring some common sense to government that defies party politics.
Yes, Chuck Grassley is such an embarrassment that he’s only managed to win re-election by large majorities every time he’s been on the ballot, Steve. Nice try.
Go ahead and form your little third party. Have fun with your 30 people at the Holiday Inn Express for your convention in 2014.
Here’s the reality for you: You can not have compromise when one side refuses to even bring forth proposals on the table of their own and refuses to consider proposals from the other side.
The Democrats in the US Senate have FAILED to present a budget proposal for over FOUR years now. In the meantime, the House of Representative has passed 4 straight budgets and sent them to the Senate–only to have Harry Reid and Tom Harkin REFUSE to even bring them forward for consideration in committee–let alone be debated on the floor of the Senate.
So, explain to us all Steve how any sort of compromise can be reached, when one side refuses to do their job?
Todd fails to understand you don’t need a majority to get things moving in the House and Senate, I might remind him the reason both sides fail to compromise probably has more to do with trying to beat each side into submission rather than get anything accomplished. This goes for both sides. A handful of votes right there in the middle of the pile could be enough to make both sides come to the table if for no other reason than to garner votes they don’t automatically have. As for Grassley and his majority wins, or for that matter, Steve King and his, it still does not mean either of them can be an embarrassment, which they both are. Just because the voters vote someone in, doesn’t mean they are incapable of blindly following their leadership over a cliff or doing things that are stupid on occasion. After 40 years of being in office, the likelihood of it happening and happening with regularity appears to go up sharply on both sides of the political spectrum. If you want a simple explanation of why compromised could be reached, consider how hard it is to get compromise now because both sides that exist currently aren’t doing their job and holding out until they get their way. a handful of people who would rather get something done who fill up the seats right in the middle of the two current parties held by those not in lock step with either party could bring compromise much the same way they do in a parliamentary system. Think outside the box, it will be good for you!
If Grassley and King are such an “embarrassment” as you claim they are–then are you alleging that the voters are stupid for re-electing them?
Not surprisingly–you fail to grasp the very simple point I made–you can NOT have compromise–when one side–the Democrats–are refusing to do their jobs.
Again, FOUR YEARS without so much as a single budget proposal from the Democrats that control the US Senate.
In that time, the House has passed 4 straight budgets that if they had been properly brought up for consideration and debate in the Senate–we very likely would not have to had the “fiscal cliff” debate and fearmongering we heard from Washington DC last month.
And you are very much mistaken–you most certainly do need a majority to “get things moving” in the House and Senate. Bills do not pass either chamber unless they have the support of the majority of members in either chamber.