Darn.

To quote Jim Hightower, who probably borrowed it elsewhere, Harkin is one of the last members of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

o and the rest of the dims want to govern, but from the t-party side of the aisle. o and the dims have no interest in doing anything for the 99%; everything they do is for the 1%. o could have buried the repugs in ’09 if he had actually governed according to his stated and implied principles. Instead, he saw to it that the repugs came back and have controlled the govt and will continue to control the govt. That way o has established his boogie-man opponents so they can control what is passed and not passed. hairy reed has made sure that the repugs retain control of the senate. o feels that his legacy will be that he could have done so much good but the repugs just wouldn’t let him.

Harkins’s decision makes me sad. I really like him and we need him. I don’t blame him, though. What sane person would want to be involved in the nuthouse called the Senate? I won’t be surprised if more drop out.

I don’t get the praise for Harkin. He was just another Senate sellout. He took care of the people that mattered, which in his part of the world meant going down for agribiz like a cheap whore.

I think the Democratic party is in a good position to retain this Senate seat.

Having a Senator from each party has worked well for Iowa’s farm based economy over the years. Folks here understand that. If Vilsack wants it, he would be damn hard to beat.

Thanks for all your help pushing Obama’s Save Health Insurance Today Act on us, Harkin!

Obama couldn’t have made the liberals stand for it without your valuable aid. Some “starter home” you have left us.

Don;t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

You mean Tom “Vil” don’t you?

Because after the way he treated Shirley Sherrod, it’s plain that there no “sack” there.

No, I meant Tom Vilsack.

Harkin and Vilsack, while far from perfect, are the best you are going to get elected out of Iowa. As such, I have and do support them. Of course, if you want Steve King or sdomeone like him to be the next Senator from Iowa, keep pushing for purity.

Yep, that’s Tom Vil alright. No “sack” in sight.

Google Shirley Sherrod, in case you’ve already forgotten. These are the kind of people you support, subsumed by fear and corruption into making stupid plays that make them look even weaker.

And if I’m “pushing for purity”, you must by default be “pushing for corruption”. How’s that working for you?

As for Tom Vil, he still has no sack.

I hope you are right.

I believe the first rule of politics is “Do no harm”.

Uh, I might be wrong about that.

I personally do not want DLC Vilsack and will be supporting young Bruce Braley from my NE Iowa district.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Braley

JC:

I would prefer Braley; however, he can’t beat Vilsack in a primary race. Also, I fear Steve King might beat Braley in the general.

I suspect that the mandarins of the Democratic Party are fine with Harkin’s departure. They view him, like they viewed Senator Feingold, as an irritant whom they’re glad to be rid of.

And while I have the floor, I have to ask why the two legacy parties are going to let Iowa lead off the nominating process once again in 2016. It’s not only unfair to states that vote later but it ensures that the wasteful ethanol subsidy will continue until the end of time.

Just another senator doing what’s right for him and fuck the country.

Harkin is in the “least bad” tier of Senate Democrats, which is damning with faint praise. Problem is, the bar for “least bad” gets lower every Congress and has now sunk to somewhere in the Earth’s mantle.

Harkin can give the gift of Democratic dominance by sponsoring and voting for a drastic immediate Social Security program of cuts in benefits to pay for tax cuts and wars on the backs of the disabled and elderly.

By introducing and voting for a 10% reduction in Social Security benefits beginning April 15, 2015, Harkin would be one of five Senate Democrats to give Republicans the chance to cut entitlement spending to reduce the deficit during Obama’s term.

With all 45 Republicans, plus Angus King, or Joe Biden, the Republicans would make their budget proposals clear to the voters and give voters the chance to ratify the Republican tax and budget cutting priorities.

As long as Republicans run on cutting the size of government by cutting off spending to people who vote Democrat to trick Republicans into voting to cut their own benefits, with Republicans knowing the Democrats will lose elections saving the entitlements of Republican voters, Democrats are going to continue losing. Republicans can depend on Democrats like Harken to save Republican voter entitlements and ag corporate welfare like farm subsidies of all sorts to save SNAP and school lunch.

Hey, Harken saves progressives from having to figure out hos to organize and win elections in places like Texas where the poor suffer far more and in larger percentages than they do in Iowa.

This will be the first open race for a Senate seat in Iowa in 40 years. Both Harkin and Grassley earned their seats by defeating incumbents.

I sure hope we can do better than Tom Vilsack. Trading an ineffective progressive like Harkin for a corporate New Democrat would be a step in the wrong direction, and Iowa senators tend to serve for a long time.

FOR SHAME! The otherwise progressive senator from IOWA supported farm subsidies!

I hate them too. Who do you think we can get elected on a “Kill The Farm Subsidies” platform in Iowa? I’ll send ‘em money – if that candidate is anything like as progressive as Harkin, that is.

For many years now (since before I supported him for president), I have pointed out that anytime one hears common sense from a member of congress on the Teevee, it’s likely to be Harkin speaking. I’ll miss him – and will be gobsmacked if Iowa sends anyone half as good to replace him.

When I saw the fold on the filibuster it was my thought that Obama does not have to worry about what he says he wants in his speeches becoming law because this election changed nothing.

“But we live in a democracy. We might not like all the rules in a democracy, but the way to change those rules is through democratic change.” Examine the federal government and you find ‘elements of democracy’ or perhaps a ‘primitive’ or ‘proto-democracy’. The electoral college hardly qualifies as a ‘democratic’ institution. so 1 of the three branches isn’t ‘full on’ democratic. The senate, please. There’s 1/2 of the legislative branch being not recognizably ‘democratic’ in the sense of one person, one vote, one value, one official. The Supreme Court, approved by the Senate is disqualified as a ‘democratic’ institution. Leaving only the House which has what seems to be a majority of ‘gerrymandered’ i.e. rotten borough districts. So saying we live in a ‘democracy’ is an opinion and thus contestable rather than a fact. Add the presence of corrupting influences such as lobbyists and campaign bribes err contributions and the argument of ‘we live in a democracy’ weakens further by any plausible metric. Combine that with the unequal treatment and smothering of third parties by denying ballot access via legislative fiat and the argument of ‘lack of democracy’ becomes solid enough to have to confront or concede that the ‘not really a democracy’ at the federal level is manifest. Similar, though less potent arguments are available against ‘democracy at the state level’ and so on down to the city council and town board.
The electoral college, life terms on the supreme court, the constitutional gerrymander of the senate, the filibuster in the senate, the political gerrymander in the house, ballot access rules that keep third parties from becoming viable. all make the US a ‘non-democracy’.

Again, are you in a wheel chair and shuttered in because of no access to city services you pay taxes on? Enough with the cheap broadsides. Other people here do a much better job of it and pick on the right people, too. You obviously don’t know the guy.

True about the whole of your comment. But, the ethanol subsidy is now in the hands of Grassley to defend. Good luck, Chuck.

Ineffective progressive, eh? I suppose an effective Corporate, Wall Street butt kisser like Schumer or a free trade hussie like Feinstein is the ticket, right? Sheesh. The guy was a 1st term Senator when Ronnie Raygun raised taxes on the rich 6Xs in 6 yrs. Do you remember how Harkin voted? Blame yourselves for the DLC in 1992. Harkin won the Iowa caucus. Just like the world would be the same if Albert Gore, Jr. wasn’t cheated out of the election in 2000. ” Well, you wouldn’t know a diamond if you held it in your hand, the things that pass for knowledge I can’t understand. ” Steely Dan

Well, at least he’s stepping out before he turns 80. We don’t need any more fossils who are going to die in office. Chances are that he just saw the writing on the wall and didn’t have it in him for a campaign that would actually be a battle. These guys that have had their seats essentially handed to them each election just can’t handle the prospect of a possible defeat, even if the odds are slightly in their favor.

There should be an age limit as to when one can run for their next term. After 66, every day could be your last without warning. It’s pretty ridiculous how many people in the Legislature are now in their 70s and 80s.