From the Washington Post this morning:
A spate of retirement announcements by Senate Republicans this year have further complicated attempts by GOP strategists to begin rebuilding a party devastated by across-the-board losses in recent elections.
The latest departure news came yesterday, when Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio said he has decided not to seek a third term in 2010, citing a desire to “step back and spend the rest of our time with our children and grandchildren.” Voinovich joins Republican Sens. Sam Brownback (Kan.), Christopher S. Bond (Mo.) and Mel Martinez (Fla.) on the sidelines heading into the 2010 election. So far this year, no Democrats have announced plans to retire after the current Senate term.
The rapid pace of Republican retirement announcements has dispirited many in the party who thought the 2008 election, in which the party lost seven or eight seats (depending on the outcome of the Minnesota contest), marked the GOP’s nadir.
Obviously, I’m happy with the idea of improved Democratic electoral prospects in 2010, but there’s pressing business in the meantime — and I was looking forward to the possibility of nervous Republican senators (specifically, those up for re-election in ’10 in states Obama carried last November, as Voinovich was) helping Dems over the 60-vote filibuster hurdle on important legislation.
Chris Bowers at Open Left still holds out hope, saying that “retiring Republicans appear far more willing to support Democratic legislation than those who seek to stay in the Senate” — and explaining the logic as follows:
When Republicans are determined to leave the Senate, their leadership seems to lose control over them. This makes sense, as who cares about future retribution if you are leaving the camp altogether?
I’m not so sure. Even if the retiring Repub senators aren’t officially under their party’s control, they’re still likely to be looking for GOP favors in their post-congressional careers. And Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight crunches his formidable database and comes back with a different conclusion than Bowers:
On the whole, though, there doesn’t seem to be much movement. Perhaps old senators — like most old people — are fairly set in their ways. Perhaps also they are voting their conscience — but being Republicans, they have a fairly conservative conscience.
Most of the key pieces of the Obama agenda, moreover, are fairly popular — the “big three” agenda items of the stimulus, health care, and energy policy certainly included. If I’m Obama, I’m not sure I wouldn’t rather have someone like Voinvoich or Martinez subject to the usual electoral constraints on these issues than being free to vote their conscience.
I’m inclined to agree with Nate. Their conscience is the last thing I want these fuckers to be voting.