Rep. Pete King ‘Leaning Against’ Senate Run
EmailRepublican Congressman Pete King today hinted today that he may not seek the New York Senate seat currently being held by a Democrat, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand.
King told me on “Good Morning America” that he is “leaning against” it, but will decide in the next week.
What makes King so hesitant to go for the powerful Senate seat?
The GOP leader is confident that Republicans will regain control of the House this year, which would make him the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King is currently the ranking Republican member on that committee but before Democrats gained the majority in 2006, he served as its chairman.
The prospect is alluring. Becoming chairman would “put me in a position to get more done,” King told me.
Democrats face a tough election year. Several key Democratic Congressmen, including Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Sen. Byron Drogan of North Dakota, will not be seeking re-election. At least four other Senate seats are considered vulnerable. Some gubernatorial seats are also in jeopardy. Just yesterday, Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado, said he will not run again.
Republicans are likely to give Democrats a tough fight this year.
Watch my full interview with Rep. King:
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Reid’s bill is unconstitutional! If Congress has the power to force each person to have health insurance, then
individual liberty would be totally meaningless!
We must
win this battle in the courtroom and the court of public
opinion in order to stop this socialist power grab once
and for all!
Posted by: deanbob | January 6, 2010, 10:28 am 10:28 am
COUNT THE LIES: OBAMA VOWED 8 X TO TELEVISE HEALTHCARE
________________________________________
Now Dodd is retiring.. we can do a proper investigation of him and he WILL be led away in handcuffs along with Barney Frank
2006: democrats declare Jihad on Americas economy
Posted by: Wake me up when bodies start falling from the sky | January 6, 2010, 11:05 am 11:05 am
Congress makes everyone purchase car insurance, is that unconstitutional? Your criticism is pointless and not back up with any knowledge. You fear socialism but what you really fear is caring for your fellow Americans.
Posted by: Come On | January 6, 2010, 11:35 am 11:35 am
Posted by: Come On | Jan 6, 2010 11:35:41 AM Car insurance is not a federal mandate, they have no such power. You still have choice to not purchase car insurance because you have choice to not buy a car. Why should anyone be forced to care about anything? Would you like to be forced to go to church because someone thinks that would be good for the general welfare? I would like to force you to take a constitutional class because I think that would be good for you to care about learning about individual freedom.
Posted by: Ferrari5858 | January 6, 2010, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
***Congress makes everyone purchase car insurance, is that unconstitutional? Your criticism is pointless and not back up with any knowledge. You fear socialism but what you really fear is caring for your fellow Americans.
Posted by: Come On | Jan 6, 2010 11:35:41 AM***
That is because they are allowed to regulate comerce to a degree and because people must be licensed to drive it’s not a stretch to require people to provide for the possibility of a car accident.
However the federal government doesn’t license people to live in the country as a Citizen. Additionally as insurance companies cannot sell insurance over state bounderies the federal goverment does not have a cause to rule health insurance as interstate comerce which means that insurance companies activties fall under the pervue of state law, unless the federal goverement passes laws that effect the “business of insurance” as a whole(everything from health insurance to liablity umbrella policies), under the McCarran–Ferguson Act of 1945.
Granted the House bill repeals that act, to remove the anti-trust excemption, which is another nice little grab of state authority as well. Repealing M-F would mean that all state laws concerning insurance could be made moot by the federal government in favor of federal decisions in the guise of preventing insurance carriers from becoming monopolies.
Meaning that even though each state currently has laws that their local citizens have petitioned for to require insurance carriers to abide by, they will now have to make do with federal laws coming from lobbying interests that may not even be based in their state, and whos wishes may not benefit the local citizenry.
***You fear socialism but what you really fear is caring for your fellow Americans.***
Nice drivil there but a local charitable concern can help a communities citizens much more than the federal legislature hundreds or thousands of miles away from its citizenry. Caring for fellow Americans should not invovle agreeing to pay higher taxes so that someone else can decide how to help people. If you want to help your fellow American donate your time a a local charity, soup kitchen or food bank. Don’t make me pay higher taxes because you want to be lazy.
Posted by: bobtherepublican | January 6, 2010, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
“you” as a generalization btw, not pointed directly at yourself, Come On. :)
Posted by: bobtherepublican | January 6, 2010, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
There are hundreds of choices for auto insurance and you do not have to have auto insurance, in every state if you show financial responsibility you can skip the AARP or whomever your carrier might be so that argument should leave the road so to speak
Posted by: earl | January 6, 2010, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
Well Pete King–If you can’t run with the Big Dogs, you best stay on the porch! Besides, why would New York elect another politician tainted by corruption? Oh that’s right–so they can get more stuff for free at the expense of the rest of the US. If either of the two political parties has a majority–America has done something very wrong. Elect an Independent.
Posted by: NewJerseyVet | January 6, 2010, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
On the car insurance arguement? Yes–it is unconstitutional. The courts are wrong. If Congress required Americans to buy an American car or pay a penalty–would that be unconstitutional? Yes. Insurance is a product that should be left to the natural market forces–not subsidized to the point where Big Insurance is running most state and local governments’ decisions. The Constitution preserves State’s rights–the courts have taken those rights away. Fire a judge today!
Posted by: NewJerseyVet | January 6, 2010, 9:13 pm 9:13 pm
..Rep.King is silent for some reason about a white house aid who hung a picture ornament onto the holiday tree,commemorating Mao..worlds leading terrorist..I will admit,his eliminating some 75 million of his own people is no big deal but to some folks with compassion it is…Nino
Posted by: Nino Baldino | January 7, 2010, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
Is this the interview where King says Obama doesn’t use the word terrorism–and where Stephanopolous doesn’t challenge him on it…AGAIN?
Posted by: Philip Avon St. Cyr | January 8, 2010, 6:01 am 6:01 am
King is not worthy of representing any citizens of this country in any gov. position.
He has since taking office, disregarded his oath to the Constitution.
Posted by: cawobeth | March 13, 2010, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm