GOP exodus continues — Domenici to retire

October 4, 2007

Historically, when a party’s incumbents start retiring en masse, it’s indicative of a party in serious trouble. With that in mind, the Republican Party’s chances for congressional gains in 2008 will grow even bleaker today when Sen. Pete Domenini (R-N.M.) will announce his retirement.

Mr. Domenici has battled a series of health problems and was caught up in the Congressional inquiry into the firings of United States attorneys, including one based in Albuquerque. He had said he intended to seek re-election, hoping to safeguard a seat for Republicans in a state where Democrats have made substantial advances in recent years.

He would become the fourth Republican senator to announce that he will not run in 2008, further encouraging Democrats whose hopes of extending their slim majority have been bolstered by the other impending Republican retirements, in Colorado, Virginia and Nebraska.

These retirements are major setbacks for a party that can ill afford bad news. If Domenici were on the ballot next year, he’d be considered the favorite. Instead, it’s a competitive open-seat race that the GOP will have to invest heavily in to keep — and may still come up short.

Domenici’s retirement, welcome news for Dems, comes with two key angles: the U.S. Attorney scandal and the broader political landscape that keeps tilting against Republicans.

On the prior, Domenici is the subject of a Senate ethics committee investigation into his role in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. The scandal tarnished Domenici’s reputation, and almost certainly contributed heavily to his retirement decision. Paul Kiel offers a refresher.

[I]n October of 2006, Domenici called U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias to ask about whether an indictment against a prominent state Democrat on public corruption charges was forthcoming before the election. When Iglesias said no, “the line went dead.”

After ducking questions about the first reports of the call this February, then saying “I have no idea what he’s talking about,” he finally admitted that he’d made the call and said he regretted it.

And not only did Domenici call to pressure Iglesias, he was also instrumental in his firing, making calls not only to the Justice Department, but also to the White House.

The only explanation offered for those complaints was a vague frustration that Iglesias didn’t file enough cases — a complaint that didn’t hold up to scrutiny…. Domenici’s role was, and remains, the most damning evidence of a political motivation in the firings. And with the possibility of a full-blown ethics investigation looming large, Domenici has decided to move on.

As for the broader landscape, 2008 was poised to be a difficult cycle anyway for the party — the GOP has 22 seats to defend next year, the Dems have 12. With an unpopular war, an unpopular incumbent president, and an unpopular party in general, Republicans need to keep retirements to a minimum in order to conserve campaign resources.

And yet, they’re exiting stage right. Domenici joins GOP Sens. Wayne Allard (Colo.), John Warner (Va.), and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) among those who are definitely leaving, and if we include Larry Craig (Idaho), that bumps the number up to five, with Dems confident of picking up at least three of these seats.

Throw in some pick-up opportunities for Dems in New Hampshire, and Minnesota, and some in-play races in Maine, Oregon, and Kentucky, and you have a very discouraging landscape for Republicans.

Post Script: There’s been some talk this morning that the DSCC would love nothing more than to get New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to end his presidential campaign to run for this now-open Senate seat. Richardson aides insisted overnight that he is not interested.

I think you are being optimistic in your projections.

CO is probably a pickup
VA is probably a pickup with Warner
NB will be tough even if the Dems get the former senator and governor to run
ID will stay Republican barring a miracle
NM might be 50/50

It doesn’t seem that the “Dems confident of picking up at least three of these seats” is an accurate reflection. It seems like very wishful thinking.

If you add NH, OR and Maine then it seems reasonable to hope for a 4 seat pickup.

Of course, it is early and I could be completely wrong.

Worst case is the Republicans hold everything and pick up South Dakota and Louisiana. It would be terrible if the Republicans regained the Senate.

  • Certainly, this is good news.

    But, as long as the Dems have decided to apparently table real punishment about the blatant disregard on the part of various Administration officials with respect to Congressional subpoenas that seek to dig deeper into the attorneys general scandal, I am not giddy overall.

    I am so unbelievably disillusioned by the non-action of the Dems on this issue, and a host of others of similar nature–wherein the Administration, its members and former members are allowed to ignore constitutionally-protected oversight activities and subpoenas.

    As Conyers said (paraphrasing)–‘who is ever going to show up to our Committees if they are allowed to get away with ignoring a subpoena?’

    Indeed. The Dems, supposed ‘saviors of our Republic,’ are merely yet another group (largely) of bought-and-paid-for puppets. It sure seems so.

  • Of course Richardson has to say now that he’s not interested, but what an opportunity that would be for him (and us) if (when) he doesn’t get the presidential nomination. Maybe he’s thinking that if he accepted the senate run he wouldn’t get to be a VP pick. As a latino he would make a powerful edge in the presidential race, but unless Mrs Polarizer is our nominee I doubt if we’ll need a latino as VP more than we’ll need more Dems in the senate.

    Given what we’ve seen so far, if we can’t get close to the 60 senators we need to overcome the Republican obstructionists, our Democratic “leadership” won’t be willing to do squat about a host of problems we face. I hope Richardson sees that and makes the right move.

  • Racerx, your “conventional wisdom” that Clinton is too polarizing is a little hard to square with todays WaPo polling. The money ‘graph on the issue:

    Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing.

    The poll shows HRC with an 8-point head-to-head lead on Giuliani in a comparison of frontrunners (note that a NY poll yesterday also showed her with a double-digit lead over Rudy among the constituents who know them both best – which I think makes a great campaign ad). It shows the number who “would not” vote for Obama is almost identical to HRC, and it shows movement away from Edwards as a general election candidate.

    On the available evidence once could reasonably argue that Clinton is the most electable Democrat, not the least. (Let me hasten to add that after the 2004 debacle I would hope that a subject guess as to who has the most “electability” is not the key criteria this time around anyway – I personally think Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd all would have a good shot at beating whoever the Rethugs nominate.)

  • I don’t agree with post # 2

    Sure I would prefer the investigations to go a little faster; but you also have to realize that in order for that to work, everybody has to play by the rules. The Republicans haven’t played by the rules for 12+ years, do you expect them to all of a sudden see the light and fall in line?

    Independents, Fence Sitters and Democrats are frustrated for sure, however, the slow pace of the investigations keeps it in the press closing in on the elections. One thing is for sure, the Republicans won’t be able to wiggle their way out of the next election cycle, like they are doing now in regards to all their wrong doing.

    Why do you think so many Republicans are ‘retiring’? It’s not retiring, it’s more about not wanting to answer any questions in regards to their behavior the last 6 years, and not wanting to have an embarrassing loss on their record.

    Sure it doesn’t go as well as the reality bases community would like it. I’d much rather have a mediocre Democrat in congress than a good Republican, if a good Independent isn’t available and electable.

  • I agree with Zeitgeist. It would be sour grapes for any Independent or Democrat to stay home and not vote for Hillary because they don’t like who she is. This coming election isn’t about ‘voting your conscience’ ; it IS about making sure no Republican is elected into office.

    Even if you don’t like Hillary, she is FAR better than any Republican on the ticket. Sure I don’t like some of the things she talks about either, but I’ll vote for Hillary or Obama or any other common sense candidate who happens to win the nomination.

    All those so called ‘principled’ Democrats who moralize in blogs, need to realize that it is exactly the reason why the reality based community isn’t doing as well in countering the Republicans. We are principled and don’t lower ourselves to the despicable tactics used by the right wing. We may want to, but we’re just not as good at it, it’s not in our blood to do so, even when trying we’ll look like amateurs. Doesn’t it seem that corruption, deceit, moralizing, lying, cronyism comes natural to the vast majority of Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration?

  • Senator Domenici apparently suffers from a disease called Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration, which causes, “… emotional blunting and loss of insight. Other common features are disinhibition, neglect of personal hygiene, mental rigidity, perseverative behaviors, voracious appetite and hyperorality.”

    This explains a lot- especially the odd pajama incident. Perhaps Pete’s pugnacious behavior can be attributed to this disease, rather than complete right-wing idiocy as previously thought.

  • ‘Course, if the Republicans keep the SCHIP from passing, and if the Democrat’s in Congress keep bringing it up, I think a lot more than just three or four seats may change hands.

  • It would be sour grapes for any Independent or Democrat to stay home and not vote for Hillary because they don’t like who she is. -Bruno

    Would it also be sour grapes if one didn’t stay at home, went to the polls, skipped the vote for President and voted the remainder of the ballot?

    Why are so many ‘progressives’ trying to bully people into voting for someone they don’t feel can do the job well?

  • Mike K:

    Interesting comment on Domenici’s health. But by the principle of Occam’s Razor, I’m sticking with the explanation of “complete right-wing idiocy.”

    I know that we’re all engaging in a bit of wishful thinking concerning chances for Democratic pickups in the Senate, but let’s aim high. At worst, we should be able to cut Lieberman from the team. At best, I can count to a filibuster-proof SIXTY!

  • Neil (#1), I think you are pretty well on target, but I think if Kerrey runs NE may be better than 50-50 for the Dems. I also expect that, with a little tailwind and big money advantage (and, I must add, Howard Dean’s well-timed 50-state infrastructure effort) we can create a much broader playing field that stretches the RSCC and opens some unforeseen possibilities for pickups. Particularly if R’s keep getting in legal and ethical troubles between now and then.

  • Particularly if R’s keep getting in legal and ethical troubles between now and then. -Z

    I think you mean ‘as’ instead of ‘if.’

    It’s also hit them in the pocketbook and the RSCC doesn’t have the money to mount effective campaigns.

    This is a great opportunity for the Democrats to make meaningful strides. So how do you think they’ll blow it? 🙂

  • Well, I feel compelled to comment from New Mexico here. There’s been a lot of talk here about the Domenici retirement with a Richardson (senator for life) scenario. The speculation has been that Domenici was fundraising in order to support his little puppet Heather Wilson (Congresswoman from ABQ) in a Senate run. Luckily, Wilson is caught up in the U.S. Attorney business as well. Who knows what will happen once Richardson drops out of the presidential race. I still doubt he’ll run for Senate as he seems to be more interested in administrative positions. I do know this, though, in response to Neil’s assessment in post #1. With an open Senate seat, NM is not 50/50. It’s far better than that for Dems. The Republican party here is in shambles. They could only run a lunatic against Richardson in the governor’s race. I don’t know if anyone besides me noticed, but the entire Republican end of the NM congressional delegation made CREW’s list of the top corrupt congresspeople. I think people here are getting tired of this. It’s embarrassing, and we are state that is growing tired of being embarrassed. Perhaps I’m wrong, but thus is my two cents.

  • You’re probably right, Okie, though if the man ends up being really sick I’ll sure feel like an ass. Similar to the folks who made fun of Reagan’s lousy memory must have felt when it came out he had Alzheimer’s.

  • I’m sure Larry “Cruiser” Craig’s seat will be open (no pun intended), so you might as well throw Idaho into the mix.

  • To NMDem, I’m moving out to Santa Fe from Chicago later this month, and want to get active in the Party and the 2008 election. I’m monitering the NM Democratic Party site, but I’d love to “talk” to another NM Dem. If you’re reading this, would you mind sending me a note to jill.votedemocratic@gmail.com with any ideas. Thanks.

  • “And yet, they’re exiting stage right.”

    And still the majority Democrats cower in the face of threatened vetoes and filibusters. They won’t even make a principled stand. Reid whimpers “unfair” and Pelosi whimpers … nothing.

    How is the voting public supposed to respond when their newly elected “champions” turn out to be such a bunch a greedy, timid cowards?

    I just returned from two weeks in Italy (Umbria). The many parties there (and elsewhere in Europe) TAKE A STAND, regardless of the likelihood of success. They get quoted in the press. People read what they have to say. Simply TAKING A STAND pushes their cause(s) forward some. Maybe Americans are too committed to simple black-and-white, win-or-don’t-play, immediate-gratification thinking to realize this. At any rate, it doesn’t bode well for Party or for the Republic.

  • Heather Wilson is running for the seat, which might translate to a House pickup, if Madrid runs again.

    2008 got interesting on November 8, 2006 – and it just keeps getting more interesting all the time.

  • Mr. Carpetbagger (or anyone else who has insights and links),

    Historically, when a party’s incumbents start retiring en masse, it’s indicative of a party in serious trouble.

    Not that I doubt this statement, I just was wondering if you could point to a few examples in history where the facts support this. I’m guessing that the 1994 midterms is one example, but I don’t have any supporting evidence.

    thanks in advance.

    • Comments are closed.