Skip to comments.GOP prospects pass on Iowa Senate run (Establishment hopefuls don't want to be losers!)
Posted on 05/03/2013 5:46:22 AM PDT by cotton1706
Iowas 2014 Senate race became a golden opportunity for Republicans when Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin announced in January he wouldnt seek another term. Its a bona fide swing state, and the electorate should lean GOP if past midterms are any indication.
So why are so many of the GOPs top prospects taking a pass?
State Agriculture Commissioner Bill Northey is the latest to forgo the race, announcing Thursday that he feels he can better serve the state in his current position. He follows Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, who announced just last week that she, too, was sitting the race out.
Northey and Reynolds, along with Rep. Tom Latham, are three top candidates who have all opted against running for Senate against Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee. At this point, the only remaining high-profile prospect who hasnt ruled out a run is Rep. Steve King.
Iowa Republicans say a combination of factors is keeping some of their most promising potential away: the fact that Harkins announcement was fairly unexpected; the quick time frame in which possible candidates are expected, by the media and by supporters, to make a decision; and a general desire to stay in their current positions or pursue other opportunities down the line.
If youre Tom Latham, I think you say, I just got elected to a new district, defeated a sitting congressman, and its not a natural move to turn around and say, Well, now Im a U.S. Senate candidate, said Craig Robinson, a former Iowa GOP political director who edits The Iowa Republican.
Nick Ryan, who heads the American Future Fund, said considerations about keeping seniority in current jobs or possible plans to run for other statewide offices might be playing a role.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
But after a slew of establishment picked losers last November, prospective candidates aren't putting their necks out on the line on the off chance they might be elected. Because establishment candidates only like a sure thing. They don't like to fight for it and take controversial positions that they may have to answer for later. Conservatives, on the other hand, relish the battle, and fight the liberals.
I hope Steve King decides to run. He can take that Iowa seat because he's not afraid to speak his mind and will not cower from the fight. With Deb Fischer handily defeating Bob Kerrey in neighboring Nebraska last November, another real conservtive can certainly defeat a democrat in Iowa.
King’s strategy is probably correct.
Keep it low key for the moment, keeping the pecker gnats at the Register at bay...
Establishment Republicans don’t like to fight for ANYTHING which is why they are going the way of the dinosaur.
If this King fellow voted to elect Boehner leader again after the “imperfect deal” Oboehner tax hike at the beginning of the year, I don’t see a conservative.
Over 90 percent of GOP politicos are phonies.
My congressman (Scott Perry of PA 4th District) goes out and attacks “the administration” but he voted to keep Boehner as leader too.
They make red meat speeches using emotional wedges to keep us supporting them while they continue to spend way too much but we are supposed to like them because their deficit spending is less than Obama’s.
When will the King’s and Perry’s propose an immediate balanced budget and the elimination of government deparments to help get us there?
It looks more like establishment Republicans are dropping out left and right, leaving the nomination King's for the asking. So why hasn't he announced yet?
Politico is trying to get someone to stick their neck out....they need time to chop it off, clearing the field for a dem.
Steve King will run and he can win. He is a fighter and he isn’t afraid to bloody his opponent and drive a populist line.
I will defer to the Buckley rule which means I don’t know who to support. I will say this: The seat was in big-time democrat hands for 30+ years and WE should not blow this opportunity. I would think that the YOUNGER candidate should count for something. I’m thinking 6-12-18 years down the road.
Iowa is a state that should be a GOP lock given the Demographics that it isn’t is the product of huge investments by Democrats though it didn’t stop Iowa from sending 3 of the state supreme court justices packing. If Steve King runs I support him. Chuck Grassley is the other Senator in the state so its not like conservatives have a problem winning state wide races. The problem in Iowa has been Presidential elections which had been shifting towards the GOP column up till McCain and Romney with GW Bush narrowly winning over Kerry in 2004. Iowa’s shift back towards the Democrats have been driving more by huge investments by big progressive Dem Billionaires who have targeted Iowa.
Well, Senate anyways.
Says the butt turd from, here ya go folks - MASSACHUSETTS.
Don’t comment on Iowa politics jackweed till you know the facts.
I’m a conservative that wants conservatives in the senate. What difference does it make where I’m from. What are the facts? Who would you prefer over King?
Because if you lie down with dogs you get fleas, that’s what difference it makes. Anyone who lives in Mass is questionable in my book. That unsupported accusation might sting, but remember that sword can go both ways. Not wise to spout about RINO’s when you live in the ultimate RINO state.
I prefer no one over King, but the bottom line is if he runs, it means Christie Vilsack likely runs for his seat and gets it. That in turn gives her a base upon which her husband Tom can build on if Grassley retires in ‘16, which he is likely to do.
If King loses then we are out both Senate seats and a House seat. He is a high risk, high reward candidate, what you’d have is a very liberal one running against a conservative one, and it would come down to an eastern Iowa v. western Iowa showdown with the majority of votes in the east. You are talking about a very tough campaign with no certainty of victory and much to lose if it doesn’t succeed, and some to lose even if he does.
Braley, the presumptive Dem nominee for Harkin’s seat, is beatable. He is one of if not the most liberal member of the house, a trial lawyer, and a target rich environment in terms of his record and public statements. We have a stable here that can compete and beat him if King doesn’t run. Braley IMO is a hollow juggernaut with no clothes that is far more beatable than he presumes to be.
Not to mention we have Branstad running who is a very popular governor to pull the top ticket, which will help any non-King candidate. I had hoped Kim Reynolds would run, and I think it’s a mistake she’s not, but I understand that these days future governor is more palatable than going to Washington.
On that note, realize that Reynolds is a socon, Northey is the best ag sec we’ve ever had, and Latham is 90% of a Steve King. None are RINO’s, which again I find even more ironic being you’re from Mass trying to label officials who are far more conservative than will ever run in your state as RINO. Maybe you might want to clean your own house first?
Also understand that because we voted for Zero twice doesn’t mean we’re liberal. We also voted Branstad back in, and our legislative group is one of the most conservative in the nation. If we could get back the Senate we’d be doing some good things here.
In the end all is moot, as none of the A-team is going to leave their posts to risk a run. The three leading contenders this point are past state AG candidate Matt Whitaker, Matt Schultz, and state Senator Joni Ernst. I am sure other good ones will rise to the top.
Forgot to add that Matt Schultz is our current Sec. of State and also unlikely to leave his post. We need him there. This race will be on the backs of the up and comers to win, simple as that.
I don’t know if you mean the “fiscal cliff” deal, but Steve King and Tom Latham both voted against it.
The Catholic vote in the eastern one-third of Iowa elects Democrats statewide. Cut into Dem’s lead there and conservatives can win.
Yeah but the GOP has seemingly retreated from the “war on religion” meme which would’ve helped in that area it would’ve helped Romney but of course Romney was well Romney. It just amazes me how GOP just will not use potent political weapons when they present themselves.
Well you paint with a very broad brush about conservatives here in MA. We are not watered-down conservatives and we’ve had it just as much of the rest of the country. This state is liberal and both the republican and democratic parties are controlled by liberals. In 2010 the republicans nominated a worthless moderate as governor. I didn’t fall for the usual, endless argument of “well, you’ll just have to vote for the moderate because the other guy is worse” I left my ballot blank for that office.
I did the same last year with Scott Brown. I voted for him the first time because he ran as a conservative and won as one. Then I saw how he voted in office and vowed not to vote for him again (despite numerous people here on FR yelling at me for helping the democrat). Thousands like me here did the same thing and Brown the rino is now out of office.
On Tuesday earlier this week, I voted for Mike Sullivan, a conservative who was the front-runner until the rino, moderate, establishment machine got going to promote Gabriel Gomez, who got the nomination. I will not be voting for Gomez and thousands like me won’t either. We’re done with the “lesser of two evils” game. What we get with that are Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, Jim Jeffords, etc. Democrats running as republicans who time after time prevent conservatives from being nominated. And then it’s said that “conservatives can’t win here, this is the best we can do.”
So I disagree with you that I don’t know about RINO’s. I know them all too well and I know the establishment game. Maybe I was wrong about some of the candidates who decided not to run, you’re right, I don’t know them. But when I see an obvious candidate being discredited and the woe in an article about favored nominees not running, I make an assumption about what is going on.
After what happened last year, establishment favored candidates cannnot be trusted and they cannot win. Who were the only senate winners last year? Cruz, Fischer and Flake, the rest were losers (and Mourdock would have won if the people of Missouri had picked Palin-supported Steelman instead of democrat party supported Akin for rape would not have been an issue with a female nominee in Missouri).
I keep my eye out on this stuff and try to make as many people aware of the manipulations to always get the most moderate candidate nominated.
Romney was actually a good fit for Iowa’s mostly moderate Republicans. Problem is, he didn’t really start up any precinct-by-precinct or county-by-county organizations, even for the Iowa caucuses. The GOP Establishment was so indifferent that a lot of the GOP organization in Iowa was taken over by Paultards.
We had a good ground game in our section of VA but I found out later that Romney had little or no organization in many places in the state. It was just crazy.
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.