May 5, 2010 4:02 PM

David Obey, "Bone Tired," to Retire From Congress

By
Christina Ruffini
Topics
Campaign 2010 ,
Congress
(Credit: AP)

Rep. David Obey, prominent Democrat and 21-term congressmen, announced today that he would not be seeking reelection, opening up another hotly-contested seat for the mid-term elections in the fall.

Obey said partisan politics and an increasingly hostile media are some of the reasons he has decided to leave Washington. But in the end, he said, "quite frankly, I am bone tired."

"I have done all the things that I am likely to do," he said.

Although President Obama carried Obey's district 56 percent to 42 percent in 2008, the rural area in northern Wisconsin is hardly a Democratic stronghold.

Still, Obey said he is not concerned his retirement will mean a win for Republicans in the fall.

"(We have) six Democrats in the stable and I think that any one of them is capable of winning that seat," he said. "If I had not thought so, I would not have done this."

Obey, the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, has served longer than all but eighteen representatives in history. He lamented the loss of congressional camaraderie that once existed on Capitol Hill.

"You may fight like the devil between the hours of nine and five but then you could go out and get a drink afterwards," he said. "I wish to God that era was not already as far away as it is today."

Democratic sources told CBS News they were aware of Obey's intentions to announce today, but some junior staff members said they were informed only this morning.

Obey said his announcement has been in the works since the House passed health care reform in March, which was one of his long-standing policy goals.

He also said the prospect of going through another round of redistricting after the 2010 census, and all the inevitable political sniping that goes along with it, was just more than he could take.

"I just don't want to have to deal with their stuff anymore, it's just that simple," he said.

Flanked by his staff, two sons and his wife, who he described as now being the "happiest woman in Wisconsin," Obey said it was time to let a younger, fresher set of eyes take over.

"For me now, after 48 years, it is time to pass the torch," he said.


Add a Comment See all 36 Comments
by endurorob_5 May 6, 2010 12:17 PM EDT
Dog tired? He is retiring because he knows he cannot win the next election.
Reply to this comment
by Zann-Zel May 6, 2010 10:26 AM EDT
"For me now, after 48 years, it is time to pass the torch," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great jumping jehosephat. That means he was elected to his first term in 1962.

Bay of Pigs--Cuban Missle Crisis--JFK assination--RFK assination-- MLK assination--Chappaquiddick--Gulf of Tonkin resolution--The entirety of the "Viet Nam war"--ALL of the Moon landings--Kent State
Watergate--Nixons' resignation--Iranian hostage crisis--Fall of Apartheid in South Africa--Disintegration of the Soviet Union--Impeachment proceedings against a President--9/11--Election of our first black President--Passage of a National Healthcare Reform Act
========

I'll bet the man IS tired after all that!

Its funny these people screaming that we should limit congressmen's terms - are they the same people that screamed Obama didn't have enough experience? If you limit the terms how is anyone going to get an acceptable amount of this "experience"? ; )
Reply to this comment
by bradkt1 May 5, 2010 10:35 PM EDT
A TWENTY-ONE TERM CONGRESSMAN?

The old fart should have retired years ago.
Reply to this comment
by us_1776 May 5, 2010 10:06 PM EDT
alanrobisch, yes the welfare reform was one of Clinton's campaign promises. And a promise that he made good on. And he faced a lot of difficulty in getting it crafted from both sides of the aisle. It was a credit to his statemanship that he managed to get this accomplished.

I never buy the smaller govt argument by the Republicans because historically they always produced big governments. They just spent the money differently.

The problem with the debt/GDP is not so much the debt. It's the GDP. We have allowed too much technology, too many jobs, and too many businesses to leave the country. Politicians keep trading the well-paying value-added jobs for service jobs because service jobs are so much easier to create and then they can say I brought home 20,000 jobs to my district/state. When in reality they voted to let 3,000 high-paying jobs quietly slip away. This was all done in the name of the "next" election cycle at a time when the 30 second sound bite in a TV or radio ad needed to sound like they were doing great things for their district. It was all a bad shell game. And now we need to reverse this process and it is going to be difficult because now we need to get back some of those lost industries.
Reply to this comment
by kansas1946 May 5, 2010 9:21 PM EDT
"You may fight like the devil between the hours of nine and five but then you could go out and get a drink afterwards," he said. "I wish to God that era was not already as far away as it is today."

***************************

That is because Republicans think they are the party of God and everyone else is the anti-Christ. They are so busy spitting hatred against anyone who doesn't agree with them that they don't have time to act like human beings or concerned Americans.
Reply to this comment
by 1renegade May 5, 2010 11:19 PM EDT
Seems to me you have the parties mixed-up! I do believe it was the Democrats that rammed a healthcare bill down the American peoples throat against the will of the majority of Americans! Try again!
by tmittelstaed May 5, 2010 9:01 PM EDT
"... He lamented the loss of congressional camaraderie that once existed on Capitol Hill.

"You may fight like the devil between the hours of nine and five but then you could go out and get a drink afterwards," he said. "I wish to God that era was not already as far away as it is today..."

As a voter I'm overjoyed that era is gone.

I want to be represented by a politician who really believes that the planks that I used to decide to vote for him are the right ones. I do not want to be represented by a politician who doesn't give a rat's azz what the issues are or what he stands for.

As a Democrat I cannot deny the same to the Republican voters.

This country has some MAJOR crisis that it's facing. Far worse that anything it's faced in the past - even WWII. We have got to decide what kind of a society that we want in the future. We have got to decide how much the government is going to help people and when the government is going to back off and allow people to fall on their faces.

The Democrats and Republicans have radically different ideas of what this future society should look like over many different areas. It is not going to be possible to compromise on them. The only possibility is that one or the other way is going to win in each issue. And the winning side is only going to win by convincing the 30% of undecided fence-sitters out there that their way is best.

I would love to see the country fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I do not like the bible-thumping anti-abortionists. Nor do I like the tax-cutters who want to send the country into bankruptcy. Nor do I like to see the rich get away with all of the government subsidies that they are getting such as TARP. I believe that most of the reasonable people in the country feel the same way. Unfortunately neither party seems to have these goals, although the Democrats are closer to this ideal than the Republicans are. It's my hope that as both sides clash on the battlefield of ideas, that the country is going to get what it wants out of that. But, I don't see it possible to compromise - we cannot for example have zero taxes and enormous payouts via TARP to banks. Thus I'm glad the politicians are at each other's throats.
Reply to this comment
by nearl451 May 5, 2010 10:26 PM EDT
Good luck with that dream. I can'timagine the minority party that will support that mix, and if your look at the direction of the Repubs, it is to rebuild the same social conservative, false-fiscal conservative coalition of the Reagan years.
by erichsh May 5, 2010 11:19 PM EDT
Well-written, but I don't see anything in your post to support your contention that you are "fiscally conservative". Sounds like you're a Democrat all the way. When you say we need to decide "when the government is going to back off and allow people to fall on their faces", you sound like those who believe people are helpless and incapable of self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and personal initiative in the absence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, munificent, omnipresent government.
by NoWayJose9999 May 5, 2010 8:52 PM EDT
You're so concerned about a trillion dollars.....
Where were you when Ronald Reagan,and GW Bu$h ran up a tab of red ink to the tune of $11.5 trillion dollars?????????????????
Please answer. I'm very curious.
Reply to this comment
by nojoy01 May 5, 2010 9:01 PM EDT
by NoWayJose9999 May 5, 2010 8:52 PM EDT

You're so concerned about a trillion dollars.....
Where were you when Ronald Reagan,and GW Bu$h ran up a tab of red ink to the tune of $11.5 trillion dollars?????????????????
Please answer. I'm very curious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in the world did you come up with the figure $11.5 trillion dollars for Ronald Reagan & GW Bush?

Please answer. I'm very curious.
by nojoy01 May 5, 2010 9:19 PM EDT
by NoWayJose9999 May 5, 2010 8:52 PM EDT
You're so concerned about a trillion dollars.....
Where were you when Ronald Reagan,and GW Bu$h ran up a tab of red ink to the tune of $11.5 trillion dollars?????????????????
Please answer. I'm very curious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To put all that in perspective, Reagan's last three annual budgets had lower deficits than some of the monthly deficits in fiscal 2009.

?Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/09/03/times-brief-history-deficit-reagan-tax-cuts-bad-clinton-tax-hikes-good#ixzz0n6iiQ4Ur
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya gotta love these people & their one-track-mantra. Reagan-Bush, bad deficit, bad. Obama, good deficit, good. The reason the Reagan-Bush deficit was "bad" is because they didn't spend it the way you think it should have been. The reason Obamas' deficit is good (his first budget almost doubled Reagans' 8 year total)is because it's being spent on what you think it should be. Which means that it's your opinion. Yawn
See all 4 Replies
by LIBERALS-are-HYPOCRITES-2 May 5, 2010 8:50 PM EDT
"Retire" or soon to be voted out ?
Reply to this comment
by nojoy01 May 5, 2010 7:57 PM EDT
"For me now, after 48 years, it is time to pass the torch," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great jumping jehosephat. That means he was elected to his first term in 1962.

Bay of Pigs--Cuban Missle Crisis--JFK assination--RFK assination-- MLK assination--Chappaquiddick--Gulf of Tonkin resolution--The entirety of the "Viet Nam war"--ALL of the Moon landings--Kent State
Watergate--Nixons' resignation--Iranian hostage crisis--Fall of Apartheid in South Africa--Disintegration of the Soviet Union--Impeachment proceedings against a President--9/11--Election of our first black President--Passage of a National Healthcare Reform Act
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The best argument for term limits around. If Two terms are enough for a President, then Eight years should be enough for a Representative & Twelve years enough for a Senator. Professional politicians will more surely lead to the death of this country than ANY foreign enemy. Term limits. Do not let the class of professional politicans survive & prosper & become more & more disconnected with the people they govern. Eventually, a professional politicians' only goal is to get re-elected again, and again, and...
Reply to this comment
by 1renegade May 5, 2010 11:13 PM EDT
Obama's heritage is 50% caucasion, 34% arab, 16% black
by MediaMadness May 5, 2010 7:55 PM EDT
Link: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=125478331&blogId=533922124
_______________________________

Democrat Progressive David Obey Retires:Here's One Of His Best Interviews on the High Cost of the Wars and that We as Americans Should Pay For These Wars Going Forward, Opposed to Borrowing Billions from Communist-Socialist China, Japan and other Countries, who Charge Us Big Time with Interest.
Reply to this comment
See all 36 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...