Vilsack out of IA Senate race
posted at 1:21 pm on February 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
The Des Moines Register drops a rather significant surprise on Iowa Democrats looking forward to 2014. Former Governor Tom Vilsack will not seek the Democratic nomination for the US Senate seat held by retiring incumbent Tom Harkin:
Tom Vilsack has ruled out running U.S. Senate in 2014, clearing the way for the early Democratic frontrunner, U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, to press forward and raise money for what’s expected to be one of the most fiercely competitive races in the country.
“He will not seek the open seat,” Matt Paul, a longtime Vilsack aide, told The Des Moines Register this morning.
The DMR had just published a poll showing Vilsack with a substantial amount of support for the nomination. In fact, their Iowa poll numbers were so good that the pollster remarked that they would usually launch a campaign, not discourage one:
The Register’s most recent Iowa Poll stirred up buzz about a possible Senate bid by Vilsack, a former Iowa governor who is now a member of President Barack Obama’s cabinet. The poll shows 56 percent of Iowans say Vilsack would be an appealing Senate candidate, while 35 percent say he wouldn’t be.
“This is the kind of poll finding that launches campaigns,” said J. Ann Selzer, who conducted the poll of 802 Iowa adults Feb. 3-6.
One advantage Vilsack has is that he has significant name recognition. He won two state-wide races for Governor in 1998 and 2002, and has served as Barack Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture since the beginning of the Obama administration — a very high-profile Cabinet position in farm country. The poll shows, too, that his appeal goes beyond just simple name recognition:
One striking poll number: The percentage of Iowans who like Vilsack as a Senate candidate exceeds those who don’t by 21 points. That’s evidence his approval runs deeper than just simple name recognition, Selzer said.
The DMR refers to Braley as “the front runner” on the Democratic side, but that’s a bit … charitable. Only 36% of respondents to the Iowa Poll called Braley “appealing,” a full twenty points below Vilsack, and four points below his Republican House colleague Tom Latham. Democrats will have a tough time in the midterms, and need a candidate of real political clout.
So why isn’t Vilsack interested in protecting this Democratic seat? His spokesperson claims that Vilsack wants to remain at Agriculture, and that’s certainly possible, but at the expense of joining The Club? Perhaps Vilsack doesn’t believe that Democrats will be able to defend it after two years of Obama’s second-term agenda … and he may well be right.
Addendum: The NRSC seems pleased to see Vilsack depart, too. Here’s their official statement:
“The DSCC tried and failed to prevent Senator Harkin’s hand chosen candidate, Rep. Bruce Braley, from a clear path to the nomination because they know his brand of liberalism is too far outside the mainstream for most Iowans. Now Democrats are stuck a slick former head of the trial lawyers association and one of the most partisan members of Congress as their candidate, Bruce Braley.”
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all
America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
That’s why politicians get paid The Big Bucks(TM), and it would be disrespectful to make them take a pay cut because of sequester(Reg. US Pat. Off.).
Liam on April 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Dear leader has shown leadership on this issue
-msdnc talking head
Already getting credit for a deal that he had nothing to do it…..already giving him a w for this
cmsinaz on April 10, 2013 at 12:08 PM
If liberal talking heads didn’t have their delusions, they’d have no thoughts at all.
Liam on April 10, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Do, once again our liberties get compromised for the good of all…
Face it…leftists are more passionate about their ideologies than we are of ours. Registering guns as a prelude to confiscation? Responsible regulation of a constitutional right.
Not killing babies once they’re outside the womb and breathing on their own? An infringement of a woman’s civil liberties granted by the court in 73…
Skywise on April 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Tru dat Liam
cmsinaz on April 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM
If anyone’s senator votes for ANY form of GUN CONTROL, let him/her know that you won’t forgive him/her. Spend your time writing your paper and find some good name to run against him. Make sure that the good name you find to run against the senator does not have the same name as any other national figure, such as Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, McCain, Bush, or any other political oligarch.
Old Country Boy on April 10, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Don’t be too sure of that. I have all the firearms I want. Not a ‘collection’, to be sure. But I’m satisfied with the handful I choose to own; it’s a nice balance legally bought decades ago.
I simply refuse to comply with their new ‘laws’. Passion doesn’t have to always be public, I believe.
Liam on April 10, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Will Gabby and her husband still be able to keep their guns? She is after all mentally defective.
meci on April 10, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Why should I continue to vote for Republicans? It’s a serious question. What does supporting the party get us? Under Bush, it got us huge deficits, more entitlements, greater Federal control over education, wiretapping…and finally it got us Obama. Our “conservative” party has served up MSNBC’s favorite Repub, McCain, and socialized medicine architect Romney as presidential candidates! Now, any conservative influences in leadership have been stripped away by Boehner’s gang of “moderates,” there has been no serious effort to repeal Obamacare, and now we’re about to get gun control! It seems to me that I am almost never offered a choice between a Republican and a Democrat: they keep letting us “choose” between two Democrats. Do we want the very very liberal D, or the slightly less liberal D who has a deceptive “R” by his name? I used to figure, “well, I have to go vote to at least keep the Dem out.” Now, I have come to feel that that is not possible. ANY vote I cast is for a Democrat and will benefit their agenda. So I ask again, why should I support this party, whose only selling point is that it will try to destroy the economy, family, religion, and civil liberties a little more slowly than the other guys?
unclejack on April 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM
How DARE you question a victim? /
Liam on April 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM
I have asked myself the same question. In the past there have always been a few issues that the Republicans were standing “athwart history, yelling stop”.
Fenris on April 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Right along with you. But I answered that very same question last time around. And that answer is, “No more, not ever again.”
I may lose politically the rest of my life for my votes going to more Conservative candidates of other Parties, but that’s okay. My grandchildren might have a better future, if my politics catch on.
Liam on April 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Well since I generally could be charged with several felonies a day anyway what is one more. I teach my grandsons how to use guns on my little ranch in the outback. That isn’t going to change just because the feral government wants to pass a law that won’t work.
chemman on April 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM
True. By the royal “we” I meant out political leadership.(so-called) :)
Obama happily blocks laws restricting late term abortions and is applauded in the press because he supports liberties
But when our guys try to draw the line and do the same thing they melt like ice in the sun.
Skywise on April 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM
I take great solace that i never filled out a yellow form on any of my guns… if I had any guns…..
44Magnum on April 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM
At least this makes it easier to decide who the targets are if and when the shooting starts.
Wino on April 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM
If Cornyn votes for this, he’ll never get another vote from us.
johnny reb on April 10, 2013 at 1:02 PM
Just suggesting a question that needs to be asked on the floor of the Senate.
meci on April 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM
I like how both Manchin and Toomey say they support National Concealed Carry but didn’t put it in the bill.
Also, the only bone gun owners get is “expanded” protections under the FOPA of 1986. A law that NY and NJ routinely violate while the Feds do nothing.
Spade on April 10, 2013 at 1:08 PM
Please join the Senate Conservatives Fund to add your name. Very simple to do, no address etc. Just a name. Short message from Rand Paul and they do ask for a donation if you can. No pressure.
Thanks to all that can help.
SCF is doing everything it can to win this important battle. In fact, we launched a national radio and television campaign yesterday to collect 1 million petitions urging the Senate to defend the 2nd Amendment. Please call 1-800-605-1755 to add your name to the petition.
http://www.senateconservativesfund.com
bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM
bluefox
Who is behind this fund?
johnny reb on April 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED!
TX-96 on April 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM
unclejack @ 12:40 :
I agree. Most of the repubs are more demonrat than conservative. We need a new party to represent us. I feel like we are taxed without representation.
johnny reb on April 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM
GAYS / GUNS / AMNESTY!!!!
Must the Ruling class in D.C. MUST DISARM American citizens before they really start looting the country financially?
Let 20 million illegals vote, turn Texas blue by 2014 and collapse the traditional definition of the family……….and…….disarm them.
If you’re in the Congress and you’re considering supporting this INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd AMENDMENT……….you are a TRAITOR!!
PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM
bluefox
Who is behind this fund?
johnny reb on April 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM
bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM
AMEN PappyD61 !!!!
johnny reb on April 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM
If anyone is keeping the records after the background check is made, then it only takes one Executive Order to grab them for the feds.
(Which they appear to be doing anyway, in some cases illegally.)
Also, how does any law enforcement agency look up a weapon used in a crime, unless all of the records are in a single data-base? What do they do now?
AesopFan on April 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM
…..and over at YAHOO News…..they are going after Palin.
http://www.inquisitr.com/609812/sarah-palin-angers-elon-musk-by-calling-his-companys-electric-car-a-loser/
Sarah Palin apparently doesn’t mean too much to Elon Musk.
Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors, has run into some criticism from conservatives for his company’s electric car. The government-backed Tesla reportedly has some expensive battery problems that costs the car owner $40,000 to repair.
The situation has led to criticism from the business world and some politicians, including former vice presidential candidate and onetime Alaska governor Sarah Palin. In a Facebook post that attacked Tesla Motors as well as Fisker Automotive, which announced it was laying off three-quarters of its employees despite getting $200 million from the Department of Energy.
“Once again, the American public lost when the Obama administration attempted to pick ‘winners and losers’ in the free market,” Palin wrote.
Sarah Palin ripped into Fisker Automotive and also knocked Elon Musk’s company, writing: “This losing tax-subsidized venture joins other past losers like the Obama-subsidized Volt that gets 40 miles per battery charge, or like the Obama-subsidized Tesla that turns into a ‘brick’ when the battery completely discharges and then costs $40,000 to repair.
“This is really just the latest manifestation of the administration’s crony capitalism as their green energy buddies benefit from this atrocious waste of taxpayer money. Americans really need to get outraged by these wasteful ventures. As we’ve seen time and time again, We the People are always stuck subsidizing the left’s ‘losers.’ ”
Sarah Palin and her Facebook rant didn’t mean much to Elon Musk. In a sarcastic tweet Musk responded to Palin’s claims.
Sarah Palin and other conservatives been a target of Elon Musk before. When the Tesla Model S was named Motor Trend‘s Car of the Year back in November, he reminded everyone that Mitt Romney once said the government’s investment in Tesla was a “loser.”
PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Thanks bluefox. Sounds like a good group to join.
johnny reb on April 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM
God damn them all.
All who are against the Bill of Rights, spontaneously combust.
Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/traitor
traitor [ˈtreɪtə]
n
a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc.
PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM
Yes, that is the sad state of affairs within our legislative, judicial and executive branches. I wonder every day if any of them have ever really read and understand that great document.
The funny thing is, in Heller, they affirmed what Miller had previously decided, that ‘arms’ were those associated with the ‘militia’ or military.
Heller:
Miller:
Miller sad nothing about ‘lawful purposes’, only that a shotgun with a barrel of shorter than eighteen inches, was, in their opinion AT THE TIME, ABSENCE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, was not a mlitia weapon. The only reaso Miller came to that conclusion, both defendents were dead, and the attorney representing them declined to argue on their behalf because they were DEAD. So, no one argued that, in actuality, short barreled shotguns had been in use, along with Tommy Guns. The shotgun of WWI was 20 inches, but it could have been argued, by just a casual study of the literature, that it was ‘part of ordinay MILITARY equipment.’
Miller needs to be revisited, and amended. The SC is just going past Miller like it is settle, it isn’t. Military weapons change, so so does our Right to bear the NEW military weapons for militia service. That is why, with a good lawyer, these unconstitutional laws will be squashed in court.
Patriot Vet on April 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM
The administration that brought you Cash for Clunkers, which cost the taxpayer $24K per car in administrative costs, to give customers a $4K savings; That said E Verify cannot work; That took over the student loan industry and made a mess out of it, requiring that they sell some of the work back out to evil Sallie Mae…etc.
They think they can conduct background checks. Then why can’t they verify that people are working illegally and tell the employers?
Any check the federal government can do for guns they can do for any other benefit or cause, and I would suggest they fix E Verify, and when it is working, then they can see if they have the right gun owner.
Fleuries on April 10, 2013 at 1:42 PM
C-Span 2 (Senate) is on TV. Are we still going to filibuster?
Banner says Today-Motion to proceed to Gun Legislation
Sen. Imhofe just finished speaking.
bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 1:45 PM
I agree, some states would try and ban all weapons. That would be their right under states rights. But then you would have a mass exodus of people to states that have a right to bear arms. Those states that ban guns would then lose revenue (taxes), and in turn, would lose representation within the congress. I am going to retire on the Wyoming/Utah border, way up in the mountains. My in-laws already have 4 acres backing up to the national forest, and they are the only ones that are there year round.
Patriot Vet on April 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM
We’re not even being represented, LOL I know what you mean tho. I told one R’s aide today to tell the Senator we’re going to vote them out by voting for the Democrats:-) Put the fear of God in them since they fear losing their seats more than anything else.
bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM
That depends on whether or not you believe in incorporation. If you do then no, no state can ban all weapons.
NotCoach on April 10, 2013 at 2:05 PM
I trust that the NRA will immediately be announcing that Toomey and Manchin have been downgraded to an NRA “F” rating and the Tea Party will be repealing its support for Toomey?
Sandybourne on April 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM
It has, in large part, in Heller.
Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM
The Journolisters have a new false narrative. Private sales made at gun shows are subject to exactly the same regulations as private sales anywhere else. It is still illegal to sell to any convicted felon or other disenfranchised person, and illegal to sell to anyone from out of state. Some state laws are more strict.
Internet sales are also regulated and require background checks unless the seller and purchaser reside in the same state, and all other restrictions apply. It is a federal felony to send a gun directly to an out of state resident; it has to go to an FFL in the buyer’s state and the buyer must pick it up and undergo a background check. Period.
I began noticing this new BS narrative about internet sales not requiring background checks just last week. Once it came out of Chris Wallace, I don’t recall the other, but I remember thinking a new memo went out and we would see more of these lies.
Here it is again. Who is coordinating this BS?
novaculus on April 10, 2013 at 2:43 PM
So these 2 men get to decide for the entire country?
lonestar1 on April 10, 2013 at 2:56 PM
Projection.
Since the social conservatives are pretty well documented as the most consistently conservative, it seems like those who are merely “fiscal conservatives” are the ones much closer to progressives.
There Goes The Neighborhood on April 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Valueless jerks!
rplat on April 10, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Time to vote them all out starting with Toomey.
jdun on April 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM
You don’t think there is already a de facto gun registration going on? The cat-stomping, miscarriage-casing, burn-em-alive, jack-booted thugs at the BATF already go into gun dealers and copy all their Form 4473′s in blatant disregard for the law. Universal background checks would only make it easier with a myriad of excuses why they need to collect that information on legal gun owners. When it comes to violating your rights and liberties, the BATF is second to no one in this country.
tballard on April 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3