Posted on 05/03/2013 8:29:36 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
My congressman, Steve King, announced to supporters tonight via email that he will not be seeking the Iowa U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Tom Harkin in 2014.
I’d agree. People in the House do not usually run for president. Do they?
If Obama allows it.
With Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo gone, he's the last Comanche.
Pass the barf bag.
Thanks EternalVigilance. Pwned?
Yeah. You really need to be at least a senator, the best option being a governor. Good governors are hard to find nowadays though. Look how that snake, McDonnell, turned out.
None of the names mentioned are remotely conservative. Everyone of these 2nd tier candidates would vote for:
Increasing the debt.
Continued taxpayer funded abortion.
Amnesty.
Gun regulations.
Keeping the Federal Reserve.
International Treaties greater than the Constitution.
Wars without end.
Ad nausium, etc, etc.
King would have been the most conservative choice. Now, Bruce Braley who is more liberal than Pelosi or Reid will win.
And we will have an ugly bitter and divisive primary to waste money on while building up campaigns that will fracture a generation with their infighting.
Oh, and we will not carry the 1st or 2nd districts either.
That is what this announcement really means.
King, who surprised me by and in his own words embarrassed himself for taking so long to decide, has bowed out and is staying in House.
Frankly I thought he’d have trouble in the general election.
But we now lack any candidate that I know of. Several people bowed out, deferring to King. I hope some reconsider.
Among those who ruled out a Senate run early on, when everyone assumed that King would run (and be unbeatable in a GOP primary), was Congressman Tom Latham, who would be our strongest general-election candidate. It would be ideal if King publicly called on Latham to reconsider (prior to a half dozen conservatives entering the race) and, if Latham ran, to endorse him in the primary.
Iowa is very much a 50-50 swing state and for some odd reason the RATs have won a lot of the important races there in recent memory (though Iowa finally has a GOP governor). Even though he would have had a target on his back for the general election, I wish Steve King had run.
I hope some of the Republicans who bowed out because King was expected to run will reconsider.
I’ve said before that one impediment that both Latham and King face is that of age. Latham will be 66 in 2014, King will be 65. Giving up 12 years of seniority (King) or 20 years (Latham) for an uncertain run for the Senate when it isn’t certain that they’ll end up in the majority is yet another impediment.
I think putting some pressure on the young Secretary of State, Matt Schultz, is a good idea. Since he’s already won statewide, that would give him a better shot at the Senate. Running some second-tier nobody for the seat is inexcusable.
Good point, Secretary of State Matt Schultz might be a better pick for a statewide U.S. Senate race than a long time Congressman. Schultz is 33 and defeated an incumbent RAT statewide to win that office. Hopefully he’s a reliable conservative.
Part of it might be the six year term lets them do whatever they want without facing repercussions from voters, and there are certainly examples of people in the Senate (as well as the House) who get Potomac fever and "evolve" after many years in office (Tom Coburn, etc.) However, I think a big part of the problem is a lot of these "tea party" Senate candidates just weren't very conservative in the first place and the tea party simply backed the wrong horse in the primary. We can't afford anymore Rob Portmans.
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.