Kent Conrad To Retire

[Joanne98]

In a big development for the 2012 Senate races, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) is set to announce that he is retiring, the Washington Post reports -- opening up a red-state seat that could be very tough for the Dems to hold.

A moderate Democrat, Conrad was first elected to the Senate in 1986. He initially retired in 1992, but was then elected to the state's other Senate seat in a late 1992 special election -- making him the only person to have ever held both of his state's Senate seats during the same day, when he was sworn in from one to the other. He was re-elected easily in 1994, 2000 and 2006.

He was one of the Democrats who helped sink the public option during the health care reform debates, but also helped to provide the 60th vote to pass the health care bill that ultimately did pass and was signed into law by President Obama.

His historically Republican state took an even bigger swing to the right in the past year, though. His fellow Dem Senator Byron Dorgan retired, with Republican John Hoeven easily winning the seat, and Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy was defeated for re-election.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/kent-conrad-to-retire.php?ref=fpa

[still_one]

1. As far as I am concerned he was one of the people who brought the Democratic party to where it is

today

[avaistheone1]

2. And the condition of where the Democratic party is today is not a good thing.

[still_one]

7. That is my opinion /nt

[RC]

3. The last few years, Conrad has been more and more a DINO.

Complete with his own home loan scandal.

That said, North Dakota is going to pay dearly for the loss of the 'team'. That budget surplus is going to disappear.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

5. To Conrad's credit, he did vote against the Iraq War Resolution.

I can't credit him with much else besides that.

[burning rain]

6. He won't be missed.

Conrad was a prime reason why a 60-seat Senate majority did Democrats less good than 51 seats did Republicans (from 2003-2005). When we take the attitude that any Democrat is worth electing, we get merely nominal majorities that can't pass good legislation, which tars all Democrats as failures and leads to the defeat of good and bad Democrats alike. For this reason I'm becoming a bit more finicky about who I'm willing to support, and the argument that we have to support any Democrat rather than let a Republican take the seat no longer cuts it for me.

[bigdarryl]

8. Right out the box the media is saying this is a safe republican pickup

I'm not to sure about that.If the rethugs pick a crazy tea bagger like Miller all bets are off

[Hippo_Tron]

10. He was one of the few that voted against the Iraq War Resolution

I realize people are going to give him a lot of shit because of the Countrywide thing and the health care process, but he definitely did some good things.

[craigmatic]

11. He should've stayed put. It's not like he was a sure thing to lose.

Just about any dem is better than a repub.

[mochajava666]

12. Conservative douchbag hippocrite

Wants tax cuts for the rich to be permanent, yet claims he is a fiscal conservative that wants to balance the budget with deep cuts. Where was he standing up to Bush's spending? Collecting donations and voting Republican, no doubt.

Door...ass...out.

[Joe Bacon]

13. 2 for 2 today!

First CONrad and then LIEberman.

Nice to know that as of January 2013, there will be two less DINOs in the Senate!