Note to House Republicans: Last one out, turn off the lights

January 30, 2008

A few months ago, there was a spate of retirement announcements among House Republicans, but it wasn’t too big a deal. The announcements were a little early, but the numbers were in line with normal turnover that happens in practically every cycle.

But what started as a modest trend is starting to look like an exodus. At this point, House Republican incumbents are fleeing from the House as if it were on fire. The latest is Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.)

Republican Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia is expected to announce that he will not seek reelection next fall during a press conference Wednesday afternoon, according to a Republican with close ties to the Virginia congressman.

Davis’ retirement announcement comes just one day after Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ken.) said that he, too, is stepping down. And Lewis’ announcement came just one day after Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) said he would also give up his seat this year.

Wait, it gets better.

On Friday, Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.) announced his retirement, and this came just a day after Rep. Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.) said he, too, is stepping down.

In all, there are now 28 House Republicans who will not seek re-election (about 14% of the House GOP caucus) — including five retirement announcements in five days.

One almost gets the sense that Republican lawmakers a) aren’t fond of being in the minority; and b) aren’t confident that ’08 will be a GOP year.

It couldn’t have happened to a more appropriate group of guys.

I don’t remember who pointed it out (Josh Marshall, I think), but in 1996 (after the Dems had been in the minority for a term), 29 or so of the 198 Dems vacated their seats. Some retired, some ran for the Senate, etc.

That’s about 15% as well. Of course, there is still time for more Republicans to retire.

But even with that large number of vacancies, the minority party picked up 8 seats.

  • Most of these guys are taking advantage of the impending change in the lobbying laws. They go where the money is. Our corporate government (Republican or Democrat) listens to lobbyists, and passes the laws their lavish corporate budgets dictate. Our corporate government (Republican or Democrat) pays only lip service to old-fashioned idealists.

  • As a DC resident, I do appreciate his working for residents of the District in trying to secure a vote for us in the House – even if he is a Republican. There is a better than average chance his seat will go Dem. and likely stay that way. The GOP nationally must be cringing as one by one they walk out the House chamber door and this hurts the VA GOP particularly hard – especially his wife lost her election.

    To me this says something about where some in the party see the future direction of the GOP.

  • Wow. It wasn’t long ago that Davis was getting ink for possibly running for John Warner’s senate seat.

    If there is any question about the Republicans being the party of corruption, look what a few ethics rules can do? I doubt Davis falls into this category, but there seems to be a policy at the JD that if you retire or announce that you won’t run for reelection, they will stop investigating previous misdeeds.

  • The entire House is up for re-election this go-round. Unless the Democratic nominee has some long coat tails, those seats now held by retiring Republicans will go to another Republican. I am very skeptical of the notion that any Democrat will beat any Republican for President. I am even more skeptical that the Dems will succeed in electing effective majorities to Congress – particularly if Clinton is the nominee.

  • Most of these guys are taking advantage of the impending change in the lobbying laws.

    Wouldn’t they have had to have resigned by the end of last year (2007) to take advantage of the change? As in the law was effective Jan. 1 2008?

    Anyway – I know that the usual formulation is that incumbency protects a seat for a party, but if this next election is about change and “throwing the bums out”, might it not benefit the GOP to have some new blood in there running against the Dems? The incumbents might not be able to gain from the negative sentiment towards DC right now, but new GOP candidates can trot out the old screeds against D.C. without having to defend their own records.

    I’m not saying it will help the GOP keep any of those seats, but could getting out now and letting someone new have a shot give them some hope of their party retaining those seats?

  • NonyNony said:
    I’m not saying it will help the GOP keep any of those seats, but could getting out now and letting someone new have a shot give them some hope of their party retaining those seats?

    I think that it will. Republicans in many districts will still vote Republican. I don’t see many of them thinking “I’ll vote for a Democrat this time.” I do see them thinking “We just need new Republicans.” In the really safe seats in both parties, the most extreme ideologues seem to have the best chance so a new face in Congress is just another notch toward the fringe of his/her respective party.

  • I wonder how much of this is payback.

    The Republicans in the House made the Democrats as powerless as possible when they were in the majority.

    Now that the tables have turned, I am sure that the Democrats are not treating the Republicans well. They may be treating the Republicans better than the Republicans treated them but the Republicans are not being treated well now.

    So, if you remember life in the majority where virtually EVERY Republican was chairman of some sub-committee then you must realize how bad it is in the minority.

    Realistically, the Republicans will be in the minority until at least 2010. It will depend on how popular the next President is. You can’t blame the Republicans for deciding that life after Congress is better than being in the minority for a long time.

  • But what started as a modest trend is starting to look like an exodus.

    Convince me. This number doesn’t mean anything to me without knowing how many Democrats are doing the same, and how many of each leave in a typical cycle.

    I’m pretty sure I saw somewhere (as commenter #1 also mentioned) that the surprise in this cycle is how many Democrats are not leaving.

  • Isn’t there some monetary benefit to a lawmaker retiring rather than simply losing the next election and being out of a job? Some of them might figure it’s better to get even a small pension than be totally powerless after November. And, of course, there’s the lobbying thing, too. For them it’s always the money one way or the other, isn’t it?

  • As long as there is Corporate control of the voting machine software (and hardware, to a much lesser extent) the Dems, and the Republic has no chance, ZERO, of ever being fair, just or democratic. So they allowed some Dems to win in 2006. Big deal. Can you say ‘smoke screen’? You have noticed, I’m sure, that not ENOUGH Dems were elected to allow the Dems to effectively manage the gov’t. The republcans (no “ic” in that word, is there?) simply block/filibuster everything the Dems try to do, and few care when the repigs do it. Then, the corporate media jumps on the repig bandwagon, blaming the Dems for getting nothing through Congress, even though they are in the majority (barely).
    I agree with JC and Ed S (#1 and 2). Don’t start to celebrate yet. Certainly we have learned by now that the dirt and sleeze and illegal maneuvers the repigs are capable of should never be underestimated. Compound that with corporate/rethug control of the voting machine software, tabulators, production, and distribution, and we have no reason for feeling good now. When the machines are gone, or they are run ‘by the people’, in the public interest, with open source code and independent/bi-partisan verification at all stages of the election process, THEN I will breath easier. Until then, any celebration is way premature, and self-illusory.

  • I think they’re also starting to realize that they have built up a huge pile of problems that won’t be solved easily, and that whoever actually tries to solve them will take a beating.

    A new crop of Republicreeps will be here in 2010 and 2012, telling us how badly the country is being run and how they’ll clean up Washington.

  • I believe that the Republicans in office realize that the Republicans are just not going to be making a comeback anytime soon. Demographic changes in the U.S. will eventually make the Republican Party irrelevant. If the Democrats do not get to 60 seats in 2008, then should easily get there in 2010.

    The real question is what will Congress be like when one party dominates Congress. My first guess is that Congress will act more liberally while looking less liberally. Moderate looking Democrats will be able to vote for closure and then vote against an actual bill while knowing it will pass without them.

    Given that about 125 Democratic Congressmen are running for reelection without opposition, there will come a time in a couple of years when a over 200 Democratic Congressmen will be running for relection without opposition. The other aspect is that as Congress become overwhelmingly Democratic, the Democratic primary will become the important election.

  • These guys voted like sheep during the Republican Congressional majority and are all flocking to the exits like sheep as well. Good riddance. Hope the door hits you on the way out.

    Of all the recent elections, I suspect that incumbency will have less of an advantage than usual. These guys seem to want to get out while the getting is good. Better to get out now than after some sort of pending ethics investigation or worse.

  • Yay! superdestroyer is here to tell us all about how horrible it will be in the impending “one-party state” that will exist when the Republicans collapse.

    There will be no one party state, sd – if the Republicans actually die off as a party a new conservative party will form in its ashes. Our system is unstable in a one party mode – if the Republican party completely disappears then the Democratic Party splits into two parties – a conservative wing and a liberal wing. And the conservative wing picks up the remnants of the Republican party’s voters and probably dominates the political scence for a while.

    A more likely occurance will be a realignment of the GOP to the center. A few election cycles in the political hinterlands will convince the GOP to give up on a few of their hard-right conservative stances to make themselves more appealing to a broader swath of voters.

    Worst case they wait it out. Eventually the Dems will be fat, lazy and corrupt enough for the Republicans to swoop in again and claim to be “reformers”. Newt did it in ’94 – I have no doubt some proto-Newt lies in wait in a College Republicans organization somewhere, and we’ll see him in a decade or so making a new Contract on America.

  • Rethug House members may be frustrated at being in the minority where the majority does really control things, and don’t expect things to change. However, Pelosi hasn’t covered herself in glory at all, and Reid in the Senate is a disgrace. The Rethugs have set the agenda despite their (bare) minority status. A larger Dem majority in the Senate would certainly help, but until it hits 60 the obstructionism of the Rethugs will dominate.

  • Tom Davis’ seat has a damn good chance to go Democrat this fall.

    First, we’re a moderate kind of place.

    Second, we’re a little pissed with him and Frank Wolfe for caving on an underground extension of Metro through Tyson’s Corner (all very local, I know).

    Third, we’re amazingly pissed with the Bushites for saying they will cut funding for this same Metro extension (to Dulles) because they don’t think it’s ‘cost effective’.

    Try visiting Washington DC and travelling the Route 7 corridor sometime during rush hour…

    Nope, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner are sharpening their knifes for this opening right now.

  • NonyNony

    the idea that the Democratic Party will split into two parts is laughable. No politicians who wants to stay in office cannot walk away from the monolithic black and hispanic voting blocks. The most likely scenario is what happens in places like Dc where the Democratic primary is the only relevant election. Besides, the Democrats already control the House. Adding another junior Democratic congressmen does not change a single committee chairmenship or the chance that any Democratic support bill will pass.

    The idea that after a decade or more of Democratic control with open borders, unlimited immigration, redistricting to eliminate 30 or more Republicans, and public financing to ensure that liberal activist are about the only people capable of running for office. In a couple of years no one who wants any infuence in the government will be donating funds to any Republican candidate.

    The best thing the Democrats could do in the House and Senate is change the seniority rules so that the one party state does not cause too many problems.

  • Dennis at #8: You are so wrong. In fact, the reason these guys are retiring is because they can read the polls in their district, the polls that show they’re going to get beaten by a Democrat. For them to make their announcements now at this stage is proof they are worried about themselves. No Republican who pops up to replace them .

    Back when we were at 21 retirements, it was common knowledge among those of us who pay attention to such things that there were 12 others who were on “the endangered species list.” I see we’re now down to 7 left on that list. We’ll see how long it takes the other s to run up the white flag of defeat.

    So, Dennis, if you’re going to be a wet blanket, could you please go do it at Billary’s blog??? Thanks.

  • “No Republican who pops up to replace them” will have the organization and backing to win.

  • Superdestroyer – I think you’ve taken a torpedo amidships. You’d best be sounding the “Abandon Ship” alarm.

    Although your moron stupidity is somewhat amusing, you’re mostly a pathetic example of the catastrophe of Republican home schooling, since you never learned the ability to actually reason something through.

  • Tom,

    I am arguing the position that the Republicans (or any conservative) will fade away and become irrelevant leaving the U.S. as a one party state.

    You are arguing the position that the Republicans will make a comeback in California, that Republicans can return to being relevant inplaces like Baltimore or Philadelphia where they have not been relevant for decades, and that blacks and hispanics will eventually start voting in large numbers for Republicans (or any white conservative party).

    Most people would consider your position a version of fantasy land. If Hillary clinton cannot get any black votes, then the Republicans have zero chance.

    Also, there is also no prospects of a green party developing to the left of the existing Democratic Party because such a party would be just as white as the current Repubican Party.

  • superdestroyer said:
    Also, there is also no prospects of a green party developing to the left of the existing Democratic Party because such a party would be just as white as the current Repubican Party.

    Unfortuantely, you’re right about the Green Party, sd. I’ve always wondered why black voters stay with the Democrats. I mean, sure, the Republicans deliberately disenfranchise blacks whenever they get away with it, deny racial profiling exists, and support an unfair criminal justice system. But does it do them any good to stay loyal to the other party when that party is too afraid of being called “the party of Jesse Jackson” to actually do anything about black voters being deliberately dropped from lists of registered voters, or about blacks being targeted by police based on skin color, or about blacks being sentenced to prison at much higher rates than other groups?

    Also you’re forgetting the corporate-controlled media, who will never take a liberal third party seriously. (Do we need any further proof that the idea of a ‘liberal media’ is a canard?)

  • Good mutha fucken riddens,
    I am sure half of you will be back for some fun at a Waxman or Leahy hearing.

  • Danp said:

    Wow. It wasn’t long ago that Davis was getting ink for possibly running for John Warner’s senate seat.

    He was going to, except he’s to moderate for Republicans from Virginia; so instead of a primary which would favor Davis, they switches to a convention where the more conservative members of the party would have dominion.

  • Superdestroyer, this is how the “one-party state” idea worked out in Canada.

    1980: Liberals 147 seats, Conservatives 103, NDP 32
    1984: Conservatives 211 seats, Liberals 40, NDP 30, Independents 1

    The Liberals were defeated in 1984 after running the country for all but 12 years dating back to 1920. New PM Brian Mulroney’s goal was to install his party as the new “natural governing party” (i.e. “permanent majority”)

    1988: Conservatives 168 seats, Liberals 83, NDP 43
    1993: Liberals 177, Bloc Quebecois 54, Reform 52, NDP 9, Conservatives 2, Independents 1

    Didn’t work out the way he thought. Pundits now say the Liberals are going to be in power forever.

    1997: Liberals 155, Reform 60, Bloc Quebecois 44, NDP 21, Conservatives 20, Independents 1
    2000: Liberals 172, Reform 66, Bloc Quebecois 38, NDP 13, Conservatives 12
    2004: Liberals 135, Conservatives 99, Bloc Quebecois 54, NDP 19, Independents 1
    2006: Conservatives 124, Liberals 103, Bloc Quebecois 51, NDP 29, Independents 1

    In 2003, the Liberals were brought down by misuse of public funds and the Reform party absorbed the Conservatives and took the old party’s name. A few years later they were running the show again.

    There is your “one-party state”

  • Splitting Image,

    Canada has a parliamentary system. Thus, any direct comparison is suspect. How many MP’s get to run for reelection? Compare that to the 125 Democrats and 25 Republicans who are running unopposed.

    Second, the last time I looked, Canda was not 12% blacks, 13% Hispanics, and 4% Asian, and 4% Jewish (four groups that all vote overwhelmingly Democratic). I doubt if Canada has an equivalent of the Congressional Black Caucus who do not ever faces challenges for reelection unless they get convicted or unless white Republicans cross over during the primary (Gus Savage and Cynthia McKinney) .

    The combination of identify politics combined with other voting trends creates many districts that are so overwhelming Democratic that the Republicans cannot even find a sacrificial lamb to run against them. The Republicans have actually learned that it is better not to run anyone against a black or Hispanic candidate because all it does is increase voter turnout for Democrats.

    There are two ways that the Republicans can stay relevant. They either increase the precentage of whties who vote Republican with every election cycle (a long shot) or they manage to attract black and Hispanic voters (a virtual impossibility while remaining a conservative party).

    In the end, as the demograhics of the U.S. become more like the demographics of California (or northern Virginia), the politics will become the same as California or Northern Virginia. A good leading indicator is that if the local school system is less than 60% whites, that area is lost to the Republicans forever. Considering that Fairfax schools are now below 60% white, Tom Davis just read the handwriting on the wall and realize that being a Republican in northern Virginia is a pointless effort.

    In

  • Supe:
    Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. In fact, the only way we could have one party rule here (or anywhere, for that matter) is if, say, an executive with a narrow worldview and megalomaniacal tendencies were to declare martial law, cancel (or rig) elections, and seize control. In this country, at least, that would be the Republikan-ofascists, not dems. Otherwise, we’ll continue with the usual cycle of party A rising to power on the excesses of the party B, party A devolving into a racket with its own excesses, and party B coming back to power on the excesses of party A. Lather, rinse, repeat. (And this is coming from someone who would like nothing better than to see publikans banished and disbanded for good).

  • That’s the big picture.
    As for your race thing, it is simply not true that races are permanently beholden to any party. While races have historically tended to vote for one party at any given time, those allegiances do change, and it can happen real fast. Remember that only a couple years ago, repubs were looking to lock up not just Cubans, but all hispanics across the board, until the nativist nutjobs scared them away. Likewise, though it’s hard to imagine today, the republican party (the party of Lincoln, remember) was for the longest time THE party for black folks. And besides, in 50 or 100 years, the term “race” will be largely meaningless, anyway, since you won’t be able to tell who is or was from what part of the earth any longer.

  • Ched,

    Past election cycles took place in a U.S. that really only had white voters. Now, with identify politics, a growing non-English speaking minority, and massive immigration, there is little reason to believe that any form of a conservative to make a comeback. It makes more sense to believe that national politics will become like Chicago politics and elections will take place in the primary of one party.

    Also, the Republicans did not lose the Hispanic vote because they never had it. Over 90% of Hispanic elected politicians are Democrats. Even in very red states, Hispanics vote over 60% for Democrats.

    Also, If Hillary Clinton or John Edwards cannot get much of the black vote against a black candidate, the Republicans or any conservative party has no chance of ever getting it.

    You should look at Hawaii to see what happens when no one ethnic group dominates. Ethnicity becomes more important, not less.

  • “sniflheim said:

    And the reason these minorities vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?”

    Because they have children in public schools? Because they frequent and even depend on public services like libraries, bus and light rail systems, community centers, skate parks, chip, and headstart? Because they want health insurance? Because they wouldn’t mind the opportunity to go to college, even community college? Because many of them don’t particularly like it when the majority of a party is fervently against their bilingualism, much less accusing them of being terrorists? Because they know which party supports unions for low wage jobs like culinary workers, hotel staff, janitors and laborers and which party tends to fight any increases in the minimum wage?

  • wrestwren,

    If you looked at the performance of the public schools in places like DC, Baltimore, PHilly, St Louis, Detroit, you would not give public schools as a reason why blacks and Hispanics support Democrats. The same would be libraries. Just go visit the public library in East St Louis or Camden.

    I think that many in the black and hispanic community believe that they get “freebies” from Democrats such as government jobs, quotas to college. minority set aside contracting. When a Democratic politician talks about taxing the rich, the minority community immediately translates rich into white.

    I also believe that to many in the minority community, they see Democrats as an easier mark than Republicans. Considering that places like Baltimore and Detroit

  • I also believe that to many in the minority community, they see Democrats as an easier mark than Republicans.

    Translation: THEM DARKIES ARE OUT TO STEAL YER MONEY!

  • superdestroyer,
    As The Needle has pointed out, I find your demagoguery pretty offensive–and not just because I’m a minority myself.

    Things like libraries and community centers aren’t “freebies” for those on the take. They’re part of building a viable community. Why are so many minority voters in my city quite happy to vote for bonds to build libraries, skate parks and community centers? Because it gives them and their families a place to be, because it fulfills a social need, because it means their community is vibrant.

    Obligation bonds have a high rate of passing in my city–at least in the last 8 years or so–because people (including minorities) are willing to pay for services. “Freebies” are things like tax breaks or corporate giveaways: like selling the rights to a public road to a private company to run as a for-profit toll road or selling the rights to run red light cameras to a private firm and giving them the majority of the ticket monies.

  • wrestwren,

    When John Edwards or Barack Obama talks about repealling tax cuts for the rich, blacks and hispanics understand that to mean that the government will be repealling tax cuts for whites.

    Since you are using anecdotal stories, I will use the one about by middle class black co-workers who complain about their taxes but vote straight ticket Democratic. I believe that anyone who vote Democratic has no business complaining about high taxes. Also, most large, urban cities spend little of their budgets on community centers or libraries. They spend most of their money on poor performing schools, on make work jobs (filled by minorities), and in minority oriented contracts.

    A good example of Democrats being easy marks for minorities is 8A contracting. The government gives contracts to minorities just because they are minorities. Those minorities usually are sham companies who then get white owned business to do the real work. Minorities support Democrats because they create more and more programs like 8A contracting.

    • Comments are closed.