Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bart Gordon to retire

Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon will not seek re-election in 2010, becoming the fourth Democrat sitting in a swing district to retire in the last several weeks.

"When I was elected, I was the youngest member of the Tennessee congressional delegation; now, I'm one of the oldest," Gordon said in a statement announcing his decision. "In fact, I have members of my staff who weren't even born when I took office. That tells me it's time for a new chapter."

Gordon has held the central Tennessee 6th district since 1984 but was headed to his most serious race in recent memory in 2010 as national Republicans had aggressively recruited against him due to the GOP lean of the seat. (Arizona Sen. John McCain carried it with 62 percent in 2008 and President George W. Bush won it with 60 percent four years earlier.)

Gordon along with Reps. Brian Baird (Wash.), John Tanner (Tenn.) and Dennis Moore (Kans.) have announced their retirements in recent weeks from seats that will be major Republican targets in 2010.

Democratic strategists have insisted that the series of retirements are isolated cases not indicative of a broader fear among Members of Congress that the political environment is shaping up badly for their party in 2010. It may be more difficult to make that argument now.

"It's official: Democrats now have a retirement problem," declared National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Ken Spain in the immediate aftermath of the Gordon decision.

Democrats now have 11 open seats (two are vacancies that will be filled by special elections). Of those districts, seven are competitive. House Republicans currently have 12 retirements, three of which are regarded as highly competitive.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 14, 2009; 10:42 AM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: Obama's tough love for bankers
Next: The most important number in politics today

Comments

This can mean one of two things:

1. A chance for a fresh Democrat face to run for office without the stimulus/healthcare reform baggage. A democrat strategy.

2. An opportunity for a Republican to run and win. I don't mean a conservative since a lot of Democrats run disguised as one and then they kick their constituents in their butt. For this the Republican Party needs to concentrate on the fact that nothing has been done for the individual voter while we are all going to pay dearly for each item on the Administration's agenda that has been passed.

Posted by: hdl549 | December 15, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

So, that's where the Family Guy meme came from. True confessions time. I gave it no consideration for awhile and flipped over a few times while there were breaks in what I was watching in late night and got hooked. There are some hilarious and spot on cultural references. They come at you unexpectedly. The FCC Song is priceless. The Star Trek parody (All Dogs Go To Heaven) managed to snag most of the crew of ST:TNG.

So, yeah, FG is profane AND funny. I can life with the former and enjoy the latter. Still can't figure out why American Dad is still around or the Cleveland Show ever existed. I wasn't too fond of B&B (the movie was funny), but was a big fan of King of the Hill.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 14, 2009 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Over and out.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Wrong, Jake, if I were to post boast after boast after boast about tossing out large sums of money to make insignificant political points, and then boasted about taking charity from a church, and someone called me on the hypocrisy (to say nothing of the brazen contradiction in my fiscal condition), I would own up to it because I am a fundamentally honest person.

For someone who spends so much time making sick insinuations about other people you sure have a thin skin. You whine about "personal attacks" more than everyone on here put together.

Over .. and out.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 14, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I've never clicked "Report Abuse" or written long complaints to our gracious host. I'm pretty sure, though, that you or drindl would consider anyone calling you liars, immune to shame, un American, tax cheats, etc. as "personal attacks". If you actually stop responding to me, that would go a long way toward reducing said personal attacks. Good luck with that.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Just click "Report Abuse" or write long obsequious complaints to CC, Jake, I'm not interested in hearing from you or in your judgment.

Look, Jake, I don't like you. You tell lies and you're a troll. You don't like me because I'm an atheist and a homosexual. No number of civility scolds will ever make me like you, and it would take years of unbroken veracity before I could even begin to respect you, so how about you just stop responding to me at all because I am really not interested in anything you have to say.

I won't talk about you, whether you're in the thread or not, and you don't talk about me, in the thread or not.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 14, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Careful with the personal attacks, GoldAndTanzanite.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

There is going to be a blood bath for the Spendocrats who rubber stamped all of these bills in 2010.

==

Religion is the opiate of the people - Karl Marx

Backlash is the opiate of the wingnuts - GoldAndTanzanite

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 14, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I saw a few minutes of "Family Guy" once. Made me want to throw my shoe at the TV. How anyone could find that cartoon stuff funny is beyond my comprehension. The wife and daughter with little triangles for noses, the baby who talks like a butler, the talking dog .. about seven orders of magnitude too stupid to be funny.

I think of television as something for kids.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 14, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Charity is never enough to reach all who need it. People who claim charity who don't need it should be horsewhipped in the public square since they're clearly immune to shame.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 14, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

See, Jake, you've been caught in SO many lies that now when you post some boast like relocating across the country just to cast a vote you don't get a single reader believing you.

"Oh, another claim by JakeD, must be another lie."

Maybe if you abandoned your moniker, came back under another with all the little writing tics ("in a civil manner," "let me know," etc) dropped and spent a few months posting actual true facts instead of falsehoods you might have a shot at posting something as nonsensical as the Connecticut move and being believed by one maybe two readers but now? As things stand? Not a chance.

Next time try a less extravagant lie for example "I'm sending a jillion dollars to Dodd's opponent," or something.

Or maybe a zillion.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 14, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I didn't "pretend" with my church or GM dealer.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

There is not an incumbent walking that deserves my vote. Especially true in Nevada.

Posted by: gainersmom | December 14, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Well I guess that Jakey is admitting that he intentionally screwed GM in their most troubling time by "pretending" he wanted to purchase one of their most expensive automobiles, take joy rides in it and then return it so he didn't have to pay and they take a loss.

What differs him from a tax cheat or a welfare cheat?

How Un American.

And then he accepts food baskets from local churches knowing dang well he can afford food because he has the money to jet around the country, or leave his home in San Diego and move to a wealthy state just so he can cast a vote.

Wow, how utterly Christ-like of you jakey.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 14, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I think The Family Guy cartoon is a great social commentary, and I am not "pretending" about anything I've ever posted.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"My wife and I will be voting Republican next year to get Sen. Dodd (D-CT) out of office -- we would also vote Republican if Sarah Palin is running for President in 2012 - it has to do with "common sense" conservatism.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 11:35 AM |"
---
Jakes brand of "common sense conservatism"
Vote for a quitter who does fundraisers for (socialist) hospitals that perform abortions (I guess everybody can be bought) because he thinks she's hot.

Pretend to jet around the country to settle his grudges while taking food baskets from local churches

Pretend to buy a Corvette then return it so the AMERICAN auto manufacturer GM which is in dire straights has to sell it as used and take a loss.

You and Sarah Palin can say the phrase "common sense conservatism" till you turn blue but I've seen nothing like that from either of you.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 14, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

"These Democrat Rats are looking to abandon ship before the angry villagers show up with tar and feathers...

Posted by: Bubbette1"
------
Except for the fact that there are 11 Republicans retiring and 9 Democrats.

Your ignorance is showing. Were you one of those kids who didn't do their homework in school?

Posted by: JRM2 | December 14, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

These Democrat Rats are looking to abandon ship before the angry villagers show up with tar and feathers as they spend our Nation and our children's future into oblivion. There is going to be a blood bath for the Spendocrats who rubber stamped all of these bills in 2010. A nice coat of tar and feathers to see them on their way would be great.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | December 14, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Most of the turnover I've read about so far confirms the trend of the GOP becoming a Southern regional party. I'm not very sure that's in the long term interest of a party with national ambitions. Could be a bit of one step forward, three steps back.

Posted by: nodebris | December 14, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I think the REAL lesson from the comments section is people take themselves WAY too seriously. Lighten up people. Bart Gordon retired because polling was showing him losing to State Sen. Tracy and he didn't want to go out in defeat. As it pertains to ring wingers vs commies, I just ignore them, because there are plenty of partisan web blogs where they can indulge themselves in partisan groupthink.

Posted by: TexasProud1 | December 14, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"I am still thinking about moving to CT next year....Because I want to vote against Sen. Dodd (D-CT) and volunteer for his opponent....Did I tell you that I'm thinking about moving to New London for the election?"

All posted by JakeD on September 17, 2009.

As Margaret says, you tell so many stories Jake.

What was the one about the Corvette? I missed that one.

Posted by: Bondosan | December 14, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty's problems with the TEA people:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2009/12/iowa_tea_party.shtml


If you're a Republican from the state next door & the Iowa conservatives don't endorse you, its hard to see a path to the Presidency.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 14, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Didn't you know that hypocrisy has been elevated to a sacred creed by the wingers, margaret?

Posted by: drindl | December 14, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Do Democrats now that the Democratic party has been made the party of Wall Street by the current administration really believe that they will win in 2010?

Posted by: bsallamack | December 14, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

jakey:

i did not know you were married pilgrim.

did you make her flash her birth certificate to ya before you proposed?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 14, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute. One of our most vocally Christian posters is watching Family Guy? Did he get a big laugh out of their abortion special?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | December 14, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

not abolish, just clean up..

There is so much free and crooked money running through Medicare and Social Security. The grants alone, that are awarded through the SSAct-- for healthcare integration (of programs) ---gets lost at the state level.
States take the money and run.

Then Medicare...it already has
Medicare Long Term and Medicare Long Term Catastrophic. What about those 2 programs?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 14, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

No.

Bondosan:

My wife and I tithe much more than that to our church -- there's no income test for the food pantry -- any member can get the discounted food. We also did not fly out to Boston for the sole reason of protesting Gates. We are not moving just to vote against Sen. Dodd. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

As the duopoly (and their commenters above) trade their silly barbs, it is obvious that the leftward/d and rightward/r alignment of those parties continues. America needs a middle ground party....

Posted by: lovinliberty | December 14, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

drindl stated the following

But let’s review. As a Center for American Progress Action Fund report found, under a Bush-style privatization plan, a October 2008 retiree would have lost $26,000 in the market plunge. If the U.S. stock market had behaved like the Japanese market during the duration of that retiree’s work life, “a private account would have experienced sharp negative returns, losing $70,000 — an effective -3.3 percent net annual rate of return.” And this doesn’t take into account the full plunge of the stock market, which dipped below 7,000 in March 2009.

This is interesting but let me throw something out. I graduated from high school in June, 1961. The Dow Jones average was 684. AT the lowest point earlier this this year, the Dow Jones average was 6627, an increase of 968.85 per cent. It is back over 10000 today. Just imagine if all of the social security that I paid over the years was invested in the Dow Jones average and the retirement income that I would have even with the stock market taking the drop that it did earlier this year.

The government investing your money is never a winner.

Posted by: sales7 | December 14, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

And these people WILL have influence on the next election -- throwing into question a LOT of republican seats:

"Armey, whose tea party movement is already shedding its non-partisan veneer to officially support Republican candidates, is attempting to “purify” Pawlenty’s record to make him more palatable to the base. But given that Pawlenty has violated so many tea party principles, Armey’s declaration of support is all the more perplexing:

– Pawlenty endorsed the Wall Street bailout package in 2008. Tea party groups often trace their interest in activism to the beginning of the bank bailouts.

– Pawlenty proposed his own cap and trade system and signed an ambitious law cutting carbon emissions. Tea party groups regularly deride both ideas as a “government takeover.”

– Pawlenty’s top economic adviser has toured his state, touting its success and the “tangible results from this funding.” Tea party groups angrily opposed the stimulus.

– In 2007, Pawlenty signed an anti-predatory mortgage law crafted in part by representatives from ACORN.

Hate radio talkers like Glenn Beck have jettisoned Pawlenty for his past transgressions, like pushing for cap and trade. To Beck, Pawlenty and other politicians who have supported the bailouts “sound like Democrats.”

Posted by: drindl | December 14, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

What is the percentage for Obama Cabinet members?

Posted by: llrllr | December 14, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Another winning strategy. Do try to abolish Medicare and Social Security, teabaggers. Go for it!

"In an interview with CBS News, corporate lobbyist and FreedomWorks leader Dick Armey mused about the direction of the GOP and the future of the tea party movement that his group has cultivated. Armey extolled conservatives for having “clarity” in their positions, yet hedged on whether his strict conservative beliefs would mean fighting to abolish Medicare, Social Security, or other programs not explicitly authorized in the Constitution. "

Posted by: drindl | December 14, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Houston's Mayor is all the news today too.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 14, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Here's an example of the context missing from The Fix's post. The story is about a conservative assemblyman in California who is now the target of a recall effort, because he supported th Governor's budget, which included some tax increases. The author uses the story to demonstrate how the California GOP is fractured & rudderless; a description that applies equally well to the national party. Particularly noteworthy, I thought, was the observation of how former CA Governor (and US President) Ronald Reagan would be treated by the party that views him as the crowning achievement of their party.


"The ongoing divisions trouble longtime GOP members who are old enough to have served during the party's glory days. Stuart Spencer, a trusted political adviser to Ronald Reagan during his governorship and presidency, questions how Reagan would have fared in a California GOP primary today. Reagan, he said, was about putting together a "big tent for Republicans," wanting to leave room for moderates in his party who occasionally strayed from absolute fealty to conservative ideals. "I'm not sure he could win an election here today; he wasn't that kind of conservative," Spencer said. He added: "Now, if the far right here doesn't like the way somebody has voted on one or two issues, on taxes, they're against them." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR2009121303042.html

Good luck with that strategy, boys.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 14, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Jake, I meant to type the GOP should consider sitting out 2012. However, after careful consideration, they may actually want to sit out 2012 and 2016. Good thinking. I blame my keyboard, BTW!

Posted by: free-donny | December 14, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Look at these drooling rightwingnuts, talking out of one side of their mouths about this obscure congressman quitting, and out of the other how they much they love and respect the nation's most prominent quitter, Sarah Palin.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 14, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"TexasProud1:

44% of Americans would prefer that the 22nd Amendment be repealed and GWB be back as President again ; )"

Hey charityboy,

Did you get the numbers on what percentage would prefer Bill Clinton to the ol' brush-clearer?


Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 14, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Rats leaving the ship. These guys were in line for a beating in 2010 and they know it. Change you can believe in!

Posted by: zippyspeed
==

Still beats what Sarah Palin did. Lost it for McCain, and then bailed on her responsibilities by quitting as governor.

What's that you said about believing in?


LOL

Maybe she'll star in that pornflick with Levi Johnston.

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | December 14, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

When the going gets tough the "tough" get going?

Posted by: njtoU
==

No, they go rogue instead (c.f. Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska)

Oh wait a minute, Palin did not retire, she quit!


Seriously goobers need to read a newspaper once in while. Heck, they should read something!

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | December 14, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I would be happy if all the long serving congressmen D,R and I, would resign. IMO it is the lack of term limits that creates the more serious problems in congress. Some of these men (and they are mostly men) represent perspectives that have not kept up with the evolution of America. Most of them appear to have lost touch with anything but the fringe. All of them are in the pockets of the big lobbyists. I suggest: let everyone who has been in congress for more than 2 terms (Senate) or 4 terms (House) resign. Now let the flames from the fringes begin!

Posted by: mraymond10 | December 14, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The times they are a changing:

"This past weekend finally brought some historic happy-making news to America with the election of openly gay Annise Parker as mayor of Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the United States.

Ms. Parker's entrance into the openly gay mayoral world that includes Betrand Delanoe of Paris, Klaus Wowereit of Berlin, and Corine Mauch of Zurich, is a milestone in history."

Posted by: drindl | December 14, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Rats leaving the ship. These guys were in line for a beating in 2010 and they know it. Change you can believe in!

Posted by: zippyspeed | December 14, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

bsmion -- the best part was this:

"It's official: Democrats now have a retirement problem," declared National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Ken Spain"

I actually laughed out loud. What else is someone like this going to say?

Posted by: drindl | December 14, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

If Israel does attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it will undoubtedly result in a regional war after Iran and Syria signed a mutual defense agreement on Sunday.(Snip)Speaking to Syrian media, Vahidi said the agreement was a strong deterrent to an Israeli strike on his country's nuclear facilities. Vahidi said that in addition to a Syrian response, Iran would retaliate for any strike on its nuclear facilities by firing ballistic missiles at Israel's nuclear facilities.


Liberal leadership. Message received. Weakness does not project strength.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 14, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

It seems that the only hope for Libs in the next few elections is for the Repubs to sit out. the tide has turned as the effects of liberal governing has been seen and felt by all.

Want a job? vote R!

It's really that simple.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 14, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, Jake:

For a 77-year-old Korean War vet who has to accept charity from his local church just to get by, you sure do travel a lot.

Let's see, you live in California, but you flew across country just to be able to protest outside of Henry Louis Gates' house.

And now you and the Mrs. are moving to Connecticut just to be able to vote against Senator Dodd.

Does your church know about your lavish spending sprees? If so, they might want to reconsider how they allocate their charity....

Posted by: Bondosan | December 14, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Sit out 2012 AND 2016?!

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I actually think the GOP should sit out 2016. Give President Obama as long to fix the problems that Cheney and Bush created. The pluses for repubes are....8 years to save up campaign resources...and to bring up some new "talent" to challenge for WH.

Sorry zouk and Jake, Palin winning the WH, is a pipe dream....(crackpipe). The sooner the GOP seriuosly begins to recreate itself, the better off they'll be.

Posted by: free-donny | December 14, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

ha, ha, it is to laugh (Daffy Duck circa 1950).

The DNC is scrambling to post press releases spinning these retirements as 'meaningless'. Sorry. The cat is out of the bag and the swing districts (e.g., blue dog dems) are running 'scared'.

Nancy and Harry better get the socialist manifesto passed prior to the holiday break. No votes from blue dogs in 2010 for 'social engineering' as the election nears.

Ha, Ha!!!

Posted by: jhpbriton | December 14, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Every day that President Obama pushes for the government take over of health care he injures families by the thousands across America. Every day that President Obama contemplates the idea of spending trillions more of yours and my tax dollars, the less the chances of his being able to reduce the non-voluntary unemployment/under-employment rates that are now drastically impacting one out of every five families in America. (By comparison at President Bush's jobs crisis peak - only one out of every fourteen families were impacted.) And by refusing to seriously address the need for job creation, and by invoking ridiculous and silly propositions like "jobs saved" the President demonstrates a callousness not to one injured spouse, but to an aching nation.

President Obama, from all appearances, will refuse to admit that his statist view of the world has any flaws in it whatsoever. He will dig in. He will give more speeches. He will possibly even accept more absurd awards on the world stage, even while insulting the host nation who is silly enough to honor him with such acclaim. President Obama refuses to see, what everyone else easily does, that his actions are damaging the future of millions of people, but his stubborn refusal to pivot may damage generations of descendants of those people. The federal spending (and borrowing limits) are breaking records under Obama even with one of his wars drawing down. Yet he wishes to punitively hurt energy companies, prevent the discovery of new sources, and forcibly change behavior of millions of people while taxing them record rates--over an issue that has been cited as non-existent by those who had originally put the ideas forward. Recently those experts even admitted so in e-mails to each other.

And while his numbers are falling, and he has slid into a tie with current Republican front-runner Gov. Mike Huckabee, he has not yet suffered enough--nor sensed the suffering of the American people enough (just yet)--for him to take the serious steps that Tiger Woods is being forced to do.

Because of this, "We the People" feel very much like the wife who has been cheated on and even abused by neglect, dishonesty, lies, and trickery.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 14, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"Our gracious host DID address this "fact"...:

"Democrats now have 11 open seats (two are vacancies that will be filled by special elections). Of those districts, SEVEN are competitive. House Republicans currently have 12 retirements, THREE of which are regarded as highly competitive."

(Emphasis Added)"


That is not analysis. It is barely reporting. Also left unsaid are how these races will be impacted by the TEA people. Are these competitive districts still competitive when a super-conservative wins the GOP nomination?

This district, in particular, while labelled a 'swing district' by the Fix, has been held by a Democrat for all but 10 years since 1871 (according to Wikipedia). The guy that's held it for 25 years, and is now the oldest member of the TN delegation, is retiring.

Nameless Dem strategists say there's no trend, but merely several cases of extenuating circumstances. Names Repub sources say its a trend; yet apparently don't see a trend on the Repub side. The Fix purports to be an impartial observer & analyst. So I say: analyze. The Fix, if he does see a trend on the Dem side, should explain why he thinks its a trend, and whether the Repub retirements are also a trend; and why or why not.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 14, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:

GOP retirements are not a "problem" in safe districts.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

When even people from Mississippi refer to you as ignorant hicks how much farther can you fall? "Lawd, they ain't no lower class than Tennessee trash."

Posted by: rodneythecat | December 14, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

dre7861:

Seven seats won't make a difference, but those are just the retirements. Cook has many more "competitive" seats listed than just those seven.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"It's official: Democrats now have a retirement problem," declared National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Ken Spain"
-----
The only problem with this statement is that there are more Republican congressmen retiring or not seeking reelection than Democrat.

Republican 11
Democrat 9

Typical Republican logic.

You too Snow if liberalism is a sinking ship then the numbers look even worse for you.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 14, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) sent out a recruitment call for “new Republicans,” confirming that he sees “little use for a big-tent approach for his party.” As South Carolina’s The State put it, DeMint is setting himself up as a kingmaker, wading into national races to endorse far-right candidates.

And one of the issues about which DeMint feels very strongly is Social Security. In an interview with Bloomberg News’ Al Hunt, DeMint blasted Social Security as “socialistic,” and advocated reviving President George Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme:

DeMint considers Social Security a “socialistic” measure and blasts the American Association of Retired Persons for promulgating “socialist solutions”…In the interview, he talks of reviving President George W. Bush’s failed plan to partially privatize Social Security by having workers put a small percentage of the current levy in a personal savings account.

As CNN Money’s Allan Sloan wrote back in January, “someday, Social Security privatization will come back into vogue. When that happens, I’ve got two words that will remind you why it’s a bad idea: Remember 2008.” It’s quite shocking that we’re not even through 2009 yet, and 2008, at least for DeMint, is already forgotten.

But let’s review. As a Center for American Progress Action Fund report found, under a Bush-style privatization plan, a October 2008 retiree would have lost $26,000 in the market plunge. If the U.S. stock market had behaved like the Japanese market during the duration of that retiree’s work life, “a private account would have experienced sharp negative returns, losing $70,000 — an effective -3.3 percent net annual rate of return.” And this doesn’t take into account the full plunge of the stock market, which dipped below 7,000 in March 2009.

As the Cunning Realist pointed out, failed investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were both “blue chips, the sort of companies that proponents of private accounts insisted any new system would be limited to.” Can you imagine the mess that would have occurred — and the leverage those companies would have held — had not only the financial system’s health, but the retirement accounts of untold seniors, been tied up in them?

The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that, “as a result of the collapse of the housing bubble, the vast majority of baby boomers will be approaching retirement with little wealth outside of Social Security.” Privatization opponents would have had seniors sacrifice that safety net as well.

Posted by: drindl | December 14, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry Chris I think you're bringing a lot of hyperbole into this to make it a story rife with conflict. If you wade through your Sturm Und Drang of Political Apocalypso you discover that they are almost the same number of Democrat retirements as Republicans. Yes you state that seven are competitive for the Democrats while only two are for the Republicans. Could the simple logical reason be that the GOP is becoming an 'isolated regional party,' a phrase you media types were throwing around with such abandon until someone decided that it wasn't sexy enough or have enough conflict. Even with the Media deciding on the new storyline to be 1994 Redux it still doesn't tell a true story. Let's say those competitive seats all fall to the Republicans. With the huge majority the Democrats have in the House 7 seats is not going to have that big of effect. But of course that kind of reporting is not sexy or conflicty enough for you.

Posted by: dre7861 | December 14, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

TexasProud1:

44% of Americans would prefer that the 22nd Amendment be repealed and GWB be back as President again ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

12 vs 11 isn't relevant
7 (competitive D seats) vs 3 (competitive R seats) is relevant. But go ahead, by all means, keep up the GOP bashing, and keep regurgitating the Obama-'Hope and Change' rhetoric because after Pelosi and Reid raise the debt ceiling another $2 trillion. The only 'change' you are going to see is 30-50 house seats and 5-8 senate seats.

Posted by: TexasProud1 | December 14, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I believe what a lot of people are missing here is that these people realize is that after they vote for the med bill they would not get re-elected anyway so they are not going to run but will still vote how they want to, not how their constituants want them to. full steam aherad and damn the torpedoes. vote the bill in before I leave and let the folks suffer

Posted by: robertbeaver | December 14, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Heerman53:

I would prefer Palin-Limbaugh or even Palin-Bloomberg ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the usual mouthfoaming from the usual suspects on this board.

These retirements may or may not mean a whole lot come this time next year. The bottom line is that there will likely be more Republicans in the House and Senate in 2011 than there are now. But overall control of both chambers probably won't switch, unless the Dems truly experience an apocalyptic catastrophe that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

But more Republicans, even if it's only 2-3 in the Senate and less than 20 in the House, will complicate passage of a decidedly left social agenda. That's why Dems are desperate to get healthcare done now. They know if it doesn't get done now, it'll automatically get punted for at least another 2 years due to political realities. If and when the Dems are ever able to get healthcare off their plate, the fate of other 'priorities' like climate change stuff, the new financial regulatory agency and the like will have to compete with Obama's Afghanistan proposal. The window of opportunity is closing, and the Dems know it. Republicans don't need a landslide in 2010 to muck up the works. They only need the kind of modest gains they look like they'll get.

Posted by: mbcnewspaper | December 14, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes, this is a clear indication that the GOP should run Palin for President!

Palin/Romney in 2012;

"mitts and tits!"

Posted by: Heerman532 | December 14, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

59,934,814 Americans voted for Gov. Palin, knowing full well that a President McCain could have died the day he took office. I will admit, if she can't get at least that many votes again, she will have a hard time beating Obama. OTOH anything's possible in Presidential elections!

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

WhatHeSaid:

What you (and Pew) are missing is that lots of conservative Republicans have registered INDEPENDENT over the past few years. As between Palin or Obama, who do you think they will be voting for?

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Like a Stone
John Steele Gordon - 12.13.2009 - 2:56 PM
Something interesting is going on. Jennifer this morning reported that Obama had reached a new low in the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll yesterday, at -16. The latest results, released a couple of hours ago, show the president at -19 a mere 24 hours later.

Not surprisingly, Obama’s popularity began declining right after Inauguration Day, as the messy reality of actually governing replaced the warm glow of rhetoric. He was at +28 on January 21st but down to +10 a month later. He slipped into negative territory in June, when he was at -2 on June 21st. By November 21st, he was at -13.

But the last week was been brutal: -11 last Monday, -10 on Tuesday, -11 on Wednesday, -12 on Thursday and Friday, -16 on Saturday, -19 today.

Perhaps even worse for Obama has been the sharp decline in the number of those who strongly approve. That number dropped by 4 percentage points this week, from 27 percent to 23 percent, while the strongly disapproving increased an equal amount.

And the decline is across the board:

Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove.

Polls, like markets, fluctuate on a daily basis. One day’s or even one week’s change doesn’t amount to much. But the chart below sure looks like a political bear market to me. And in politics, that translates into a loss of power to persuade other politicians to go along. With public approval of the Senate Health Care bill at an all-time low (-32 in the latest CNN poll), it seems as though it will be increasingly difficult for the president to persuade all 60 Democrats and Independents in the Senate to walk that particular plank.

My guess is that if just one of the needed 60 senators were to announce that he or she would not vote for cloture this month, regardless of what Harry Reid comes up with in the next few days, (”I’m in favor of health-care reform, but we need to consider this more carefully” — translation: I like my job and want to keep it) others would quickly follow. That would push it into 2010 and, almost surely, into a richly deserved political oblivion.

Posted by: ZOUK | December 14, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

P.S. did you ever see that "Donny Most" bit on The Family Guy? Comedy GOLD!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

A reminder for the goobers:

Only 19% of registered voters are now self-identified Republicans (down from 30% as recently as 2004).

Goobers simply do not have the votes to elect anyone on a national level.

Or the voters to overturn the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

"What is clear is that the Republican Party is facing formidable demographic challenges. Its constituents are aging and do not reflect the growing ethnic and racial diversity of the general public. As was the case at the beginning of this decade, Republicans are predominantly non-Hispanic whites (88%). Among Democrats, the proportion of non-Hispanic whites has declined from 64% in 2000 to 56%, as Latinos and people from other racial backgrounds have joined the ranks of the Democrats. At the same time, the average age of Republicans increased from 45.5 to 48.3, while the average age of Democrats has remained fairly stable. For the first time in at least two decades, Republicans are older than Democrats on average. Republicans continue to be disproportionately comprised of Southerners (39%) and white evangelical Protestants (35%)."

"While the American public becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, the Republican Party continues to lag far behind in drawing support from minority groups. According to Census figures, the share of adults who are white, non-Hispanic has fallen from roughly 73% in 2000 to an estimated 68% in 2009, while minorities make up the other 32% of the nation’s adults. Yet few of these minorities are drawn to the Republican Party. In 2009, 88% of Republicans are white, unchanged from 2000 and far above the national total." ~ Pew Research Center

RIP, GOP.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | December 14, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

free-donny:

I want Palin over Obama, yes -- and there's no other public figure currently on the scene who can generate the turnout needed to boot him out -- a "dark horse" (no pun intended) won't be able to either. Worst case scenario, the GOP get to claim running the first woman candidate for President. Sometimes, you have to bet on the horses that are running, not the horses you wish were running.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Is 12 not larger than 11 anymore?
Maybe that was the real goal of no-child left behind.

Posted by: AndyR3 | December 14, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Our gracious host DID address this "fact" (had you actually bothered to read the article you are commenting on):

"Democrats now have 11 open seats (two are vacancies that will be filled by special elections). Of those districts, SEVEN are competitive. House Republicans currently have 12 retirements, THREE of which are regarded as highly competitive."

(Emphasis Added)

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, with all due respect, you want Sarah Palin to be President? Do you believe that she is the best challenger that the GOP can field? Honestly curious. I actually think they will prop up a new face - one we have not yet heard from.

I've been wrong before, but I do not think Palin has a chance. Hey, its still 3 years away.

Posted by: free-donny | December 14, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Um, lets do the math: Dems have a 20 seat lead in the Senate...and what a 75 seat lead in the House. President Obama is not even one year into his first term. Is there any such thing as a "swing district" anymore?

Let's see the Dems just took away another house seat in NY last month. Smells like toast, and its the GOP thats in the toaster.

Posted by: free-donny | December 14, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Most of those Republicans had announced their retirement long ago (well before Obama started his approval-rating freefall ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

JohnHolder writes
"The Democrats have 11 retiring members and the Republicans have 12 (not only a larger number, but a larger percentage of their membership). So who's got a "retirement problem"?"


Given the relative sizes of their delegations, this is a fact the Fix should address.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 14, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Obama giveth and....

Posted by: improvista | December 14, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

sharonsj1:

My wife and I will be voting Republican next year to get Sen. Dodd (D-CT) out of office -- we would also vote Republican if Sarah Palin is running for President in 2012 - it has to do with "common sense" conservatism.

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Why would anyone vote Republican after 8 terrible years of Bush, Cheney, Tom DeLay and a long list of mean, ignorant politicians who only know (1) how to say no and (2) how to steal large sums of money. If the Dems don't get a spine, the Dem incumbents should be thrown out too. We could use a third party, but I don't see enough of you complainers seriously voting outside your comfort zones.

Posted by: sharonsj1 | December 14, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Conservative dreamers, your fantasies may not come true. You may ultimately get coal in your stocking.

The Party of No continues to slouch toward Washington, like the demonic beast it is.

Posted by: MikeK3 | December 14, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

>>>>House Republicans currently have 12 retirements, three of which are regarded as highly competitive.

Now THAT's a retirement problem!!
Keep em coming, Repubs.....

Posted by: angie12106 | December 14, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

As the Obama begins to circle the drain.

Posted by: carlbatey | December 14, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

>>>>>>Democrats now have 11 open seats (two are vacancies that will be filled by special elections). Of those districts, seven are competitive. House Republicans currently have 12 retirements, three of which are regarded as highly competitive.

Repubs are running scared with 12 retirements!!!
They obviously don't want to face responsibility for the $1.3 TRILLION deficit they & Bush created with their tax cuts for the WEALTHY - and HUGE tax breaks for Corporations that moved jobs overseas.

Given the $1.3 TRILLION deficit that Obama inherited - he's doing a good job cleaning up Bush's MESS!

Posted by: angie12106 | December 14, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats have 11 retiring members and the Republicans have 12 (not only a larger number, but a larger percentage of their membership). So who's got a "retirement problem"?

Posted by: JohnHolder | December 14, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

As Ron Motta asked on the Facebook feed: Is it officially a trend yet?

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

CYA Loser!

Posted by: ItsOver2 | December 14, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 14, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

One less worker, on the pinko-brick road too Marxism.

Posted by: dashriprock | December 14, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

lets have special elections now and show the dems what lays in store for them in 2010...
if it's anything like tenn., so long dems...
Hasta la Vista baby...
it can't happen fast enough...

Posted by: DwightCollins | December 14, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"It's official: Democrats now have a retirement problem," declared National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Ken Spain"

Yes, this person is certain to be unbiased in his opinion.

Posted by: drindl | December 14, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

These are "blue dogs" who would rather retire than fight for their white supremacy ideals...


Posted by: demtse | December 14, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

When the going gets tough the "tough" get going?

Posted by: njtou | December 14, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Another rat leaps from the sinking ship that is liberalism.

Posted by: snowbama | December 14, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company