IN-Sen: Bayh retiring

The Indianapolis Star reports that Senator Evan Bayh has decided not to run for re-election this year. (hat tip Josh Marshall)

In prepared remarks, Bayh, 54, cited excessive partisanship that makes progress on public policy difficult to achieve as the motivation for his decision.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,” he said.

“My decision was not motivated by political concern,” he added. “Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election.”

There goes another Democratic-held Senate seat. Not that Bayh did much for us, but losing his seat puts the Senate in reach for Republicans in a wave election.

UPDATE: Bayh has screwed us over even worse than I realized. The filing deadline in Indiana is just four days away. If any Democrat wants to run, he or she will need to collect 500 signatures from each of 9 congressional districts by then.

SECOND UPDATE: Apparently Democratic party leaders in Indiana will be able to choose a nominee by June 30. People are discussing the various options in this thread at Swing State Project. Possibilities include Representatives Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill as well as Tim Roemer, a former member of Congress from Indiana, and Evansville mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

108 Comments

helps those who seek...

a much narrower, ideologically pure democratic party...

by bored now 2010-02-15 11:02AM | 0 recs
Bye Bye Bayh

I submit the name in nomination for the Democrat Senate seat of Mr. Bayh---the most famous son of Hoosier Land----Davidddddd Lettermmmmmmannnn.......

by hddun2008 2010-02-15 11:13AM | 0 recs
What a douchebag

He couldn't have announced earlier so the Dems could field a candidate?  Nope.  Thanks Bayh for one last "fuck you very much" to Democrats and Progressives.  I hope he goes bankrupt and has to struggle the way average Americans struggle.  Douche.

by dayspring 2010-02-15 11:16AM | 0 recs
Good riddance

Though it would have been nicer if he went down in defeat. One of the worst 5 Democratic or formerly Democratic senators not named Lieberman.

by Pravin 2010-02-15 11:26AM | 1 recs
Evan Bayh

Evan Bayh type people are self righteous twits who keep using the "mature approach" excuse to hide behind a lack of strong ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if he takes some delight in proving to the party that without him, they can't win a seat over there so he can use that as an excuse for his behavior over the last two years. So he wasn't bothered by the partisanship shown during the Bush years ??

 

So let us see if Kaine can mobilize the local party to file for a strong nomination. Did they have a Plan B since Bayh's status wasn't exactly 100% for a while now.

by Pravin 2010-02-15 11:36AM | 2 recs
Hmmmm

Reports from TPM are that Bayh's campaign was actively working for his re-election last week. What happened over the weekend?

by royce 2010-02-15 12:16PM | 0 recs
oooh, oooh, oooh, I know!

He was so moved by seeing all of those wan, sickly, wizened Canadians in the stands at the Olympics that he decided to pursue his life's work of f...ing up their Healthcare System too.

by the mollusk 2010-02-15 12:48PM | 0 recs
RE: Hmmmm

Also, Politico's Josh Kraushaar says "One Dem operative close to Bayh tells me that Bayh had scheduled a video shoot this Wednesday for his first campaign ads."

http://twitter.com/politicojosh/status/9149039390

by desmoinesdem 2010-02-15 12:56PM | 0 recs
The ConDem cancers strike again!

It's not enough to obstruct the Democratic agenda from the inside, now they high-tail it and give us no time to prepare.

by TheUnknown285 2010-02-15 12:25PM | 1 recs
too bad

moderates , conservative democrats are going to pay the price for the spending binge and deficit blowing agenda being pushed by the president and the liberal leadership in congress...after the brown victory you would think they learned a lesson but it seems they are doubling down...

by lori 2010-02-15 01:07PM | 0 recs
RE: too bad

It's conservative democrats who have brought the party down.. slowing the legislative process to a crawl and stripping popoular provisions out of bills.  They reap what they sow.

by LordMike 2010-02-15 01:19PM | 1 recs
RE: too bad

spending binge and deficit blowing agenda....

There really aren't too many people who think this outside of Republican circles.  Unfunded tax cuts (going back to Reagan), unfunded wars (going back to Bush II), unfunded prescription drug benefit (going back to Bush II), popping the housing bubble (going back to Bush II), unemployment (going back to Bush II) are the main drivers of our budget deficit problem of today.  None of these are liberal policies.  They all fit DLC and Republican policies.

Obama, the Congressional Dems, and a handful of Republicans voted for the stimulus package.  But this was absolutely necessary, and if anything, too small.  Also, 40 Democratic Senators (the liberal ones) voted for the Deficit Commission.  The "liberal leadership in congress" reinstated PAYGO rules.

So other than the stimulus package, remind me again how the liberal leadership in congress has blown the deficit?

by the mollusk 2010-02-15 01:32PM | 3 recs
RE: too bad

" There really aren't too many people who think this outside of Republican circles."

- Wrong...

Democrats are losing independents all over the place by almost a 2 to 1 margin and its issues like spending and deficits that is driving that lack of support . For Republicans , some democrats and independents , these are important issues . From the corrupt healthcare bill with its price tag, stimulus , bailouts , budget , deficits and future deficit projection  , these guys are spending too much tax payer money with not much to show for it... 

If Scott Brown can win in MA  on those issues , surely places in the middle belt and south would be tough for dems...

 

by lori 2010-02-15 02:06PM | 0 recs
Just a snippet

from a recent Q-pac poll:

Although only 37 percent rate the President's efforts to reduce the budget deficit as excellent or good, 71 percent saying reducing unemployment is more important. And voters favor 72 - 22 percent Obama's $100 billion dollar package of tax cuts for small business and government spending to increase employment.

Voters believe 59 - 33 percent that spending to create jobs reduces deficits because job holders pay taxes, rather than increasing deficits through waste.

 

The Dems are losing Independents because they look like the incompetent fools the public voted out just four years ago.  Part of the reason (i think) that they look like incompetent fools is that they can't get people - people like Evan Bayh - on board with a coherent agenda.  And so it ends up looking more and more like insider trading and very little regard for what people believe is necessary.

The public is willing to be patient with deficits as long as they think a grownup will come along and make the hard decisions when they have to.  But watching Congress today does not inspire one to believe any hard decisions will be made - or acted upon - ever.

And part of the reason no hard decisions will be made is that the DLC-inspired (never mind the Republican) ethic of Washington today is business first, business last, and business often.

Poll link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1423

by the mollusk 2010-02-15 02:39PM | 2 recs
My apologies for the repeated reply

But I thought this would be good to include as well:

When senator-elect Brown goes to Washington, do you think he should mainly work with the Democrats to try to get some Republican ideas into legislation or should mainly work to stop the Democratic agenda?
82% Work with Democrats, 11% Stop Democratic agenda
On health care: 70% Work with Democrats, 28% Stop changes

Link: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ma_sen_election_post_12021.php

I haven't seen or heard anyone refer to this poll since it was taken.  Probably doesn't fit the narrative well enough.

by the mollusk 2010-02-15 02:56PM | 1 recs
RE: My apologies for the repeated reply

It's a bit hard to square that with Browns very public pledge to "be the 41st vote to stop HCR".

Maybe the public is having second thoughts.

by vecky 2010-02-15 04:37PM | 0 recs
Just goes to show up

how fucking stupid voters are. They voted for this guy and want him to work with Democrats when he ran saying he wouldn't.

 

 

by ND22 2010-02-15 11:10PM | 0 recs
RE: too bad

Lori, you are dead on. Voters are very unhappy with congress and their bahvior in general. They see the healthcare debacle as another sign that Washington is both deaf and corrupt. With voters so unhappy, its incumbents in general in trouble, it stands to reason that this November could be a complete disaster for the Democratic party....Instead of focusing on the economy and jobs, the President and congress pissed away a year on healtchare. They could have passed a small healthcare bill that woudl have at least helped those without care, instead they shot for the moon and crashed.

Anyone who thinks that Americans are upset and deeply concerned about government spending are horribly misinformed.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-02-15 03:18PM | 1 recs
RE: too bad

I agree with most of that except there is no such thing as a small healthcare bill to help "those without care". A small bill could have been passed but it would have been some minor reforms nothing that would have more than a tiny fraction of people or borught costs under control. The elements that help people are what makes the bill big - 30 million covered - costs $900 billion. Garunteed issue regardless of pre-existing conditions - individual mandate. The costs inturn fuel the medicare A cuts and taxes. A small bill would probbaly have included the exchanges, a MLR cap, tighter federal insurance regulations, maybe some medicare payment reforms. While these are solid reforms they would not have "those without care".

by vecky 2010-02-15 04:35PM | 0 recs
RE: too bad

Well all i can say is if they pass at this point by reconciliation (which I doubt), voters wont be happy. And, if they continue to focus on a bill instead of the economy, voters wont be happy..they screwed it up, move on...

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-02-15 10:29PM | 0 recs
once the bill is enacted

and they see how it works, voters will be thrilled we did it by reconciliation and they'll be thrilled we didn't give up.

Or they'll reject us and, well, it's their funeral.

I'm confident the bill will work and it's necessary, so I don't give a fuck what the voters think right now. They've been poisoned by a right wing smear campaign.

by ND22 2010-02-15 11:09PM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

I've said before this bill won't be popular now... but it will be in 4 or more years. Democrats will pay the price for it and loose in 2010 badly (but they'll loose if they dodn't pass a bill just the same). However that's no biggy. Rememeber even though democrats and LBJ passed Medicare and Civil Rights, both highly popular today, the Dems were still voted out of office in '68.

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:22AM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

I think this is part of the reason the GOP is so dead-set against the bill.  I think this is also part of the reason tort reform is such an issue for them in this debate.  They want to be able to say later on that it was really tort reform that saved healthcare in america, not the 98 % of the bill that wasn't tort reform.

personally, i say give 'em tort reform.  what the hell.

by the mollusk 2010-02-16 12:44PM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

I say give them tort reform too, but even with tort reform they are not going to vote for it. So why should we bother....

by vecky 2010-02-16 03:43PM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

Yes I was and still am for a healthcare tax credit for small business. But not due to some delusion that it creates jobs as you seem to think, rather that a sizeable credit will allow small business to be able to afford to buy healthcare insurance and offer it to their employees....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-02-16 06:12PM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

The jobs bill has a separate tax credit for hiring. I was talking about the tax credit for providing Health insurance that is in the HCR bill. The credit is 35%of the firms health insurance costs in 2010 rising to 50% in 2014, provided the employer pays atleast 50% of the premium. But you oppose the HCR bill....

by vecky 2010-02-16 07:30PM | 0 recs
That's in the bill

you know

by ND22 2010-02-16 08:14PM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

The bill is a pos that doesnt do what  they say it does, that is actually reduce costs or improve medical care. Go ahead pass it via reconciliation and watch the landslide loss in November

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-02-16 01:09PM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

The conservative or "on the fence" voters I know think the medical system is broken in part because doctors are more concerned with covering their asses than using the skills they've picked up on the job.  They feel like prescriptions are out of control, medical testing is out of control, and multiple unnecessary procedures are out of control in part because doctors are afraid of getting sued.  I'm not convinced of the reality of this.  But if the Dems showed that they were willing to confront that bogeyman, it may go a long way toward gaining public support.

Of course, all of this assume that the Democrats come up with a coherent message and take a somewhat logical path from point A to point B.  So, never mind.

by the mollusk 2010-02-16 04:56PM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

The Bill both reduces costs and improves medical care.

I remember you were agruing for a tax credit for SB to provide insurance, well that is in the Bill too.

But your against it. Figures.

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:39PM | 0 recs
RE: once the bill is enacted

here is an article written by a physician who supports reform, but who also thinks the bill will do nothing to improve care. I cant tell you how many articles I have seen like this or how many (all) of the physicians in my family who practice different specialites in different parts of the country, also support reform but see this bill as junk. So the practicioners are wrong but the beurocrats are right? is that what your gonna tell me?

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-02-16 06:11PM | 1 recs
I see no article

but I also don't value the opinion of someone who suggested telling people to eat fruit is the best way to solve the healthcare crisis.

The British people threw out the Labour party after they created NHS, in part because of it. The NHS survived and the Labour party of the 1940's has long been vindicated.

I am under no illusions Democrats will lose if they pass this bill, that's the price of trying to change a country so scared shit of change. Civil Rights cost the Democrats dearly for decades, but I wouldn't give that back for 25 years of Democratic Presidents.

We will, in the end, be vindicated. We always are.

by ND22 2010-02-16 06:56PM | 0 recs
So now "the voters" are the bad guys?

Didn't you learn anything from VA, NJ, and MA? In the bay state, voters from Boston to Chappaquidick rejected Kennedy-style liberalism.

So you can say that you "don't give a fuck what the voters think", but you will continue to be a bitter, frustrated little man, ND22. We live in a democracy, and the voters have the final say.

You guys had the Presidency, a 60-member Senate, and a huge majority in the House. If you couldn't get HCR passed, then it's your fuckup. Deal with it.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-16 10:51PM | 0 recs
Sometimes

you gotta do what's right for the country, regardless of what the voters think. It's called having principles, not something you would know since you couldn't tell principles if they dressed up like Ronald Reagan and fucked you in the ass.

BTW, Both Boston and Chappaquidick voted for Coakley, but nice pot shot at Kennedy from a so-called Democrat.

 

by ND22 2010-02-17 06:52AM | 0 recs
RE: Sometimes

"you gotta do what's right for the country, regardless of what the voters think"

That's a pretty remarkable statement. So in your proposed world where voter decisions get disregarded,

1) who makes the decision as to "what's right for the country, and

2) who makes the decision as to what remedy will be substituted for the will of the people?

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-17 10:01AM | 0 recs
Those who were elected

to make those decisions.

by ND22 2010-02-18 11:55AM | 0 recs
RE: too bad

It is perception. Voters would respect strong leadership. The Democratic Party was seen as continuing the Bush bailouts and other kind of crap that has NOTHING to do with liberal ideas. The Demcratic Party was seen as indecisive on the healthcare bill and who caused it - the White house and the conservative senators. Did Feingold get the special attention Ben Nelson and Lieberman did while modifying the healthcare bill?

 

What lost MA was the base was not energized and did not bother supporting a weak campaign in enough numbers. The independents usually go to someone with strong direction or the perception of it. Coakley did not show that. The party did not sohw that. So the other side was mobilized and showed up.

 

By the way, Scott Brown supported stuff at the state level that he claimed he was against at the national level. How do you explain that as the election was lost based on policy?

by Pravin 2010-02-15 04:38PM | 1 recs
LMAO!

Spending binge?  Deficit blowing agenda?  Take a long, hard look at Bush's tax cuts and Bush's wars.  Those are what broke the bank.  And your beloved moderates and ConDems voted for them.

They brought this on themselves by destroying the promise of Democratic control (you know, hope and change) and creating the political environment we're in now.

by TheUnknown285 2010-02-15 01:38PM | 2 recs
RE: LMAO!

Correct.  But voters don't want to hear that two wrongs make a right nor do they have a long memory.

It is like that guy on Saturday Night Live.  "Fix It!"  

Voters don't want to hear "I inherited this problem."  They want to hear "I will fix it!!!" or they will vote for a guy who will. 

by dMarx 2010-02-15 02:43PM | 0 recs
RE: LMAO!

Who among the liberals adovcated two wrongs? Liberals have had ideas to reduce the deficit, but went unheeded. How is the new budget kowtowing to liberal spending as claimed by Lori?

 

The only thing I disagree with liberals is they have a tendency to advocate higher taxes more than fighting their battles hard enough to repriortize government spending. We do not need higher taxes. What we need is balanced spending and more audits of the spending and punishment of fraud in government.

 

Not spending on inner cities is continuining to wreak bad business for us in the long term. Each time, we raise a generation of latch key kids with no programs to keep them occcupied, that is a wasted generation that causes us problems with crime , drug addiction, and other societal problems that cost the country money and prestige. Spending on social causes is good business for the country.  BUt you have to fully commit to them to make those social programs work. Halfway committment is just a waste of money.

by Pravin 2010-02-15 04:43PM | 1 recs
RE: LMAO!

That's the irony!! Joseph Stiglitz estimates the cost of the two wars to be around 3 trillion. We are in a gigantic nation building effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon spends money like a drunken sailor and billions of dollars go accounted for. Senators and Congressmen clamor to get defense contracts to their districts because that is like a golden goose, pure unaccountable tax-payer dollars. Yet through all this when the administration proposes a discretionary spending freeze it protects the 500 pound gorilla in the room!! Talk about screwed up priorities.

by tarheel74 2010-02-15 04:52PM | 3 recs
RE: LMAO!

See that's part of the problem... the belief that we don't need higher taxes we just need to cut down on "waste". Well where is this waste... a few earmarks here and there, some fraud here and there, all amount to less than a few billion dollars in a deficit that is 1.3 trillion and a budget that is over 3 trillion!

Now I understand that no one wants to pay higher taxes - mainly because they perceive no direct benefit from it. That's a perception that has to be changed. The easiest way to start would be an Iraq and A'stan war tax - that's a direct easily visible mission which is likely to have a total costs of over 3 trillion, all of it borrowed. But even those likely to support the war aren't going to support a tax to pay for the war. How high were tax rates in WW2 - they were pretty darn high. Even lower-income people were not spared.

by vecky 2010-02-15 05:06PM | 0 recs
Amen

Only in today's Democratic party could fiscal conservatism and sanity be regarded as something evil. It's no coincidence that some of the strongest deficit hawks---Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Ben Nelson---are former governors who have had to balance budgets.

Liberals in the party spend most of their time talking to each other, and ignoring what is going on in the rest of the world. You would think that the deteriorating situation in the EU would serve as a wake-up call to Obama: this is what happens in countries with runaway entitlement spending and massive deficits. The failed Treasury auction in Portugal, not to mention the problems in Greece, are the inevitable results when a nation becomes overleveraged. It's bad for households, bad for banks, bad for governments. 

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-15 02:17PM | 0 recs
uhhh

The problems in Europe are in Greece and Spain.  Not exactly the model of social democracy that the Rush Limbaugh's of the world rail against daily.

Fiscal sanity good.  Raise the age of Social Security benefits, reign in military spending, go to single payer healthcare, create two new tiers of income earners (>$500K and >$1M) and raise their taxes dramatically.

by the mollusk 2010-02-15 02:43PM | 0 recs
RE: uhhh

Pssst, facts don't matter... Spain, one of the more fiscally responsible countiries (solid surpluses until 2008, first reaction to crises was a large tax-cut) is in toruble. France - which ran large budget defecits (not as large as the US, but hey) during the 2000s and has cut no taxes in response to the crises is doing well (better than the US).

Krugman has the facts up - Psian and Greece's problems are casued by it's lack of monetary policy, which favors Germany/France over their smaller economies.

by vecky 2010-02-15 02:51PM | 2 recs
RE: uhhh

Spain's Socialist government now faces nearly 20% unemployment, mainly because they tried to spend their way out of a recession. Their costly "job creation" measures, which left them with a deficit in 2009 equal to 11.4% of GDP (that's substantially over the eurozone limit of 3%.) only made the recession worse. They also learned the hard way that green job initiatives sound great, but there's only one problem: they don't create jobs.

Any of this stuff---massive "stimulus" measures, rising unemployment, promises of green jobs---sound familiar?

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-15 03:15PM | 0 recs
RE: uhhh

Spains first reaction to the crises was a massive tax cut. Several conservatives were crowing becasue "Socialist Spain" was cutting taxes while "Commine Obama" was spending. Well it turns out the Obama stimulus worked while the Spanish cuts simply pulled the country deeper into debt.

Hehe, they were so naive - they even believed cutting taxes would aid their GDP growth:

http://news.kyero.com/2008/6/3/spain-scraps-wealth-tax

lolz.

 

by vecky 2010-02-15 04:43PM | 2 recs
God

You liberals and your facts.  No wonder people vote Republican.

 

This is snark!

by the mollusk 2010-02-15 05:06PM | 1 recs
The great Obama sedative program

Yeah, the Obama stimulus program worked great. Unemployment was at 7.6% when he took office, at 9.7% today. That's a real stellar performance.

btw, what a great place to learn about the Spanish economy, "kyero.com"......who needs Bloomberg and CNBC!  If you visit a real website (one that may give you information you don't want to see....) you'll learn about the huge spending programs which failed to jumpstart the economy in Spain.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-15 07:11PM | 0 recs
What's your bright idea?

To save the economy from disaster?

by tarheel74 2010-02-15 07:39PM | 0 recs
RE: What's your bright idea?

In the tradition of JFK and Ronald Reagan, focus on GROWTH; make the pie bigger. The current mindset is to devote more of the pie to government, crowding out the private sector in the process. Cut the corporate tax so that we're competitive with the rest of the world, and cut personal income taxes as well.

And focus on what has worked historically. Tax cuts worked for Ronald Reagan and JFK to grow the economy, large spending programs failed for Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Japan tried government stimulus programs five times during their lost decade(s), and they're still lost, trust me. The Obama stimulus bill was essentially just walk-around money for the appropriators, and it's doing nothing to create jobs.

Pass the pending free trade agreements in the Congress: South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Obama would have to tell the unions to screw off, but as Bill Clinton proved, free trade is stimulus that doesn't cost a dime.

That's just for openers. But bottom line, we need an administration that is pragmatic---focusing on what works----instead of one that is dedicated to ideology, and what sounds good.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-15 08:04PM | 0 recs
RE: What's your bright idea?

In other words you want to extend the Bush tax cuts at a time of historical deficits which you decry, the very same tax cuts that are the largest contributor to the deficit. No wonder people find conservatives unserious when it comes to tackling difficult issues because they have nothing more to offer than the same set of jaded and failed ideas.

Neither Ronald Reagan nor JFK faced an economy like this. But to address your touting (erroneously I might add) economic recovery to Reagan's tax cuts in 1981, might I point out that the economy and the deficit grew worse until he quietly rolled back his much ballyhooed tax cuts and actually had two massive tax hikes in 1982 (which included increase in corporate tax) and 1983. Bruce Bartlett even calls Ronald Reagan's 1983 tax hikes the largest tax increase in American  history during peace time. So why did Reagan increase taxes? Out of fiscal responsibility, to get the deficit under control. What you propose is typical Republican/conservative nonsense, which is somehow cutting taxes would decrease deficits (which defies common sense mathematics) and stimulate economy, when in fact the Bush tax cuts failed miserably and only added to the deficits, did nothing to grow the middle class and widened the economic gap between the very rich and rest of the citizens. Moreover it created less than 15% of the jobs that these tax cuts were supposed to create. Unfortunately to placate Republicans a third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts, which no one talks about.

Now onto Japan, the problem with Japan was that they cut the interest rates to zero to increase lending which did not materialize. Their stimulus came in very late and did not focus on education or social programs. Moreover, the stimulus was not big enough, and in the face of growing deficits and criticism of people who have no idea of Keynesian economics the governement abruptly cut short the stimulus (which was late in any case) which led to a much prolonged and painful recovery because there was no other entity with enough capital to stimulate the economy. What Republicans/conservatives were proposing (like you are) during the time of certain economic disaster has been best described by David Brooks as nihilism.

Finally when it comes to free trade, I am all for it. But is signing any of those agreements open up jobs in the USA? The trade agreement as it is designed now is skewed heavily against US exports of automobiles and steel while preserving the Korean agricultural tariffs. So you realize that at a time of high unemployment ratification of a treaty like the South Korean FTA will actually increase unemployment rather than reduce it, which at a time of high unemployment and recession makes no sense.

by tarheel74 2010-02-15 08:58PM | 1 recs
RE: What's your bright idea?

Sounds like you're trying to re-write the history of the '80's:

"No wonder people find conservatives unserious when it comes to tackling difficult issues because they have nothing more to offer than the same set of jaded and failed ideas"

You may want to think of the '80's as "failed", but most economists and Americans disagree with you. Carter and the 70's were about failure; the Reagan revolution was about success:18M new jobs, an end to the inflation that had existed since LBJ, and he increased the Gross Domestic Product by one-third. You can call conservative ideas "failed" all you want---it's a free country---but that doesn't make it so.

What you need to understand about tax cuts is that they don't always aggravate deficits....with all due respect, don't believe everything you hear. Tax receipts to the Treasury during the Reagan years more than doubled, because of the increase in economic activity. In other words, the increase in economic transactions and growth actually increased tax revenues, and brought the deficit down to 2.9% of GDP.

At the beginning of this year, many of us here warned that the Obama stimulus would be a waste of money. While Obama promised that his spending bill would produce 3.5 million new jobs, we said that the stimulus would lose jobs. And throughout 2009, another 4.1 million jobs were lost, and the unemployment rate is now 9.7%. At this rate, the economy will have to produce 7.5 million new jobs for him to achieve his goal. Good luck.

Next time you meet someone who's unemployed, just give them your explanation of how great things are going. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-16 12:14AM | 0 recs
RE: What's your bright idea?

Tax cuts don't increase deficits??? That's called voodoo economics. You conveniently skirted the one thing I pointed out and I will say it again: REAGAN RAISED TAXES TWICE. His 1982 tax hike was the LARGEST CORPORATE TAX INCREASE in peace time ever!! In 1983 he DOUBLED payroll tax. Those are LEGISLATED tax increases, not increase in tax receipts, which is nonsense. In other words Reagan increased GDP and reduced deficits by increasing taxes and also by fiscal discipline. You say tax cuts create jobs, your hero GWB said his tax cuts would create 5.5 million jobs in 18 months. How many were actually created? around 680,000!! That's about 13% of the projected number!!! And it exploded our deficit!! That's the insanity of tax cuts for you!! Listen you offer nothing but the same old conservative song and dance which have been debunked over and over. You don't even acknowledge that Ronald Reagan actually increased taxes twice. I see no point arguing with an ideologue who offers nihilism in the face of economic disaster.

Yes, Obama's stimulus did not create enough jobs and I will tell you why, because it was too small, he was still on his bipartisan schtick that did not materialize. The stimulus bill should have been about 2 trillion (according to Joesph Stiglitz), he is getting villified by nihilists like you now, yet he added a third in tax cuts to get a few votes from the same nihilists (of course the very same conservative hypocrites who voted against this bill are attending ribbon cutting ceremonies in their districts with money from the same bill).

by tarheel74 2010-02-16 12:53AM | 2 recs
I was wrong

Reagan did not increase taxes twice, he increased taxes SIX times:

1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act

1983 He raised the Social Security tax rate by increasing payroll tax

1984 Deficit Reduction Act which also increased taxes

1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

1986 Tax Reform Act, which had tax increases for the first two years

1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

by tarheel74 2010-02-16 10:59AM | 0 recs
There you go again.

You conveniently avoid specific %'s in your little fable about "Reagan, the Great Tax Hiker" (which sounds a whole lot like a NYT op-ed piece I once read by Paul Krugman; you really should give him attribution...) Of course there were some tax increases during the 80's; but nobody argues that the overall NET impact of tax policy in the 80's was to cut tax rates, and to let people keep more of what they earn.

As a specific example, the top marginal rate was cut from 70% to 50% in ERTA (1981), and then to 28% in the Tax Reform of 1986. The tax increases along the way were small, designed to make Congressional Dems feel like they were doing something useful....kind of like the credits and rebates they shoe-horned into the Obama stimulus. One time credits don't work to stimulate the economy; permanent changes in tax rates do.

Tax policy is one of the chief tools of fiscal policy, just as the Fed changes its rates in crafting monetary policy. Using your argument that Reagan somehow "flip-flopped" when altering rates is like suggesting that Bernanke should leave the Fed Funds rate near 0% forever. When economies come out of recession, policy makers use the tools at their disposal to alter strategy and achieve an appropriate mix.

As to tax receipts, total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue. So while I know you have trouble with facts, the real facts are that Reagan increased tax receipts to the Treasury, even while cutting taxes. That's not voodoo economics, it's reality.

I cited the economic successes of JFK and Ronald Reagan, not George W. Bush. For you to call him "my hero" is yet one more thing you pulled out of thin air, just like your numbers and shopworn, discredited ideas.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-16 03:38PM | 0 recs
RE: There you go again.

Yes, tax receipts increased by 1990 because Reagan increased the tax burden on the country to pay for his massive deficit funded expansion. Reagan's tax cuts were not a true tax cut in any rate - they just differed the true rate from the early 1980s to the early 1990s. Once the tax rate had returned to equilibrium as a result of corective measures undertaken in the 90's by more responsbile Presidents and Legislatures the economy really took off - this one not a mirage funded simply by government borrowing. That is real economics, not the revisionist voodoo you spouted.

And yes, GW Bush is your Heo since your economic policies - i.e: more tax cuts for the wealthy and lax regulation are what he championed and what led us into the current mess.

Please address these concerns before digging your whole any deeper.

by vecky 2010-02-16 07:40PM | 0 recs
RE: There you go again.

Wow....more gobblygook? Haven't you ever heard the expression, "just give me the bottom line"?

Bottom line---Reagan whipped inflation (which was over 14% when he took office), reduced unemployment to 5.5%, and won the Cold War. You want to argue otherwise, so have at it. But obviously most Americans, as well as most Presidential historians disagree with you. Like most liberals, you bring up all kinds of trivia in an attempt to besmirch him....go ahead and have at it. You must have a lot of time on your hands. Before this is all over, you'll be asserting that 2+2=5.

btw, your writing makes no sense; did you graduate from HS? Go back and get your GED, at least....look at what you just wrote:

"they just differed the true rate from the early 1980s to the early 1990s"

What is it that you're trying to say in this sentence? Tell me "Vecky".......I care.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-16 10:42PM | 0 recs
RE: There you go again.

Yes - "Reagan" did bring inflation under control, though this was more the doing of Volcker who was appointed by Carter, but atleast Reagan tolerated with the man fa term and then fired him in order to gut his legacy by appointing Greenspan who was effectively the anti-Volcker. Good stuff there.

No Reagan did not win the Cold War. He did little other than spend a lot of money on military programs which were shelved even before he left office and supported increasingly violent Islamic radicals in Afghanistan and a dictator in Iraq. I guess the those had some tangential effect on the Soviet Union but I would hardly trumpet it as a positive legacy.

As for the economics of the tax cuts, it's pretty simple: The Reagan "tax cuts" simply deferred the tax rate from the 80's to the 90's, i.e: folk in the 90's had to pay for Reagans irresponsible cuts in the 80's. There was no net benefit to the economy or anyone else. Well, a precious few did become super-rich, but middle class wages remained stagnant, poverty rates increased and America fell behind in pretty much every category. After a brief break in the Clinton years, Bush saw to it that the Reagan legacy was fulfilled leaving the country in the perilous state it is today.

Comprende?

by vecky 2010-02-17 01:58AM | 0 recs
There you go again.

There's only one answer for people who are as ill-informed as you are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnSwJeO3_bE

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-17 05:14PM | 0 recs
RE: There you go again.

Oooh... total wipeout. I'm loving it!

by vecky 2010-02-18 01:03AM | 0 recs
Ignorance is not a virtue

Maybe you should study a little before you betray your ignorance:

1. ERTA reduced tax recipts

2. ERTA reduced the GDP

3. Between 1982-1986 there were significant increases in payroll tax, excise tax, sales tax, even a gas tax, not to mention capital gains tax hike in 1987.

4. TEFRA in 1982 was gigantic tax increase primarily affecting the middle class

As far as Reagonomics goes, Gregory Mankiw describes it best:

An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenues would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. … People on fad diets put their health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan's election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenues to rise.

One more time, read. Ignorance is not a virtue. As far as I am concerned this is the end of the discussion because you betray your ignorance when you say stuff like this: "The tax increases along the way were small, designed to make Congressional Dems feel like they were doing something useful".

by tarheel74 2010-02-17 01:04PM | 0 recs
Yes, but specificity IS a virtue

I cited specifics to verify what is common knowledge to most people: that President Reagan cut taxes during his two terms. The top marginal rate went from 70% to 28%, but maybe somehow you consider that an increase. If you want to view the other rates, I'll be glad to provide them. OR, we could use Jimmy Carter's misery index, in (a) 1980, and (b) 1989. But somehow, I doubt you wanna go there.

You speak in generalities, and all you've proved so far is that you know how to do a Google search. If you measure the key metrics of (a) jobs created, (b) inflation, and (c) annual economic growth, the Reagan Presidency was a success. Try to explain it away all you want; and then when you're done, you call tell us all how 2+2=5.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-17 04:44PM | 0 recs
RE: Yes, but specificity IS a virtue

Fail again.... how can you call:

"

1. ERTA reduced tax recipts

2. ERTA reduced the GDP

3. Between 1982-1986 there were significant increases in payroll tax, excise tax, sales tax, even a gas tax, not to mention capital gains tax hike in 1987.

4. TEFRA in 1982 was gigantic tax increase primarily affecting the middle class"

generalities, unless you misunderstand the meaning of the word. It's far move specific, and devastating to your arguement, than anything you've ever brought up. Keep living in your revisionist past, is this on your must read list?:

http://www.amazon.ca/Dixie-Victorious-Alternate-History-Civil/dp/1853675954

by vecky 2010-02-18 01:07AM | 0 recs
Jesus Bjj

you just got owned by a fucking PUMA, you're a glutton for punishment.

by ND22 2010-02-15 11:05PM | 0 recs
RE: What's your bright idea?

Soooo..... i'm not seeing much of an arguement other than tax cuts. Right.

Tell me, how did that work for GW Bush?

Gotcha...

p.s: you forgot the spending cuts too. Tax cuts don't for the deficit. At least try a proper arguement this time.

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:35AM | 0 recs
RE: What's your bright idea?

Please translate the following sentence from your comment:

"Tax cuts don't for the deficit."

"Vecky", that doesn't make sense. As I've been telling you, if you clean up your spelling and syntax, people will begin to take you more seriously.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-16 02:34PM | 0 recs
RE: What's your bright idea?

Oh comon u can't be that silly. Insert your own word - cut, eliminate, address, pay for, do squat. So many choices. As your so fond of pointing out even a 10 year old can figure it out.

Maybe next time you post a comment you should try answering the question.

by vecky 2010-02-16 03:39PM | 0 recs
More slogans

And daily prayers to Saint Reagan, of course.

by JJE 2010-02-16 11:38AM | 0 recs
RE: The great Obama sedative program

The economy was losing 600K to 700K jobs a month when Obama took office. Now we're losing a lot fewer jobs--in the next month or two we might even be in positive territory.

by desmoinesdem 2010-02-15 07:55PM | 1 recs
RE: The great Obama sedative program

Sure we're losing less jobs, but we're working off a lower base.....in other words, a lot of businesses have cut all they can, and they won't hire again until the uncertainty qoutient (threat of new mandates/taxes, energy regulations) is reduced. We lost over 4.1 million jobs in 2009, so the good news is that we can't lose a whole lot more; the bad news is that until this administration changes their approach, businesses won't be hiring again anytime soon.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-15 08:53PM | 0 recs
LOL

you think TAXES and ENERGY REGULATION is why business won't hire?

Wow, you got your neocon wingnut talking points down pact.

by ND22 2010-02-15 11:07PM | 0 recs
RE: LOL

Yup don't ya know... taxes and regulation were the cause for all those lay-offs and the great recession that started in 08. I guess the Bush tax cuts and lax regulation weren't lax enough. Let's try doing those again but cut taxes much much more and gut regulation even more. That is sure to create an economic boom (*cough*...bubble) and if we just cross our fingers and tap our toes and mutter "Reagan Reagan" a few times it all won't crash again in 2-3 years.

 

YAY!

by vecky 2010-02-16 06:03AM | 0 recs
RE: The great Obama sedative program

If you don't think we can loose a whole lot more jobs then I can only assume you are not working, and have not been working for some time.

Trust me, I know the labor market from after the Lehman collapse. Had the down-turn not been arrested we coudl have eaily lost 3-4 times as many jobs as we did. The Great Depression repeated was not far off the mark.

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:32AM | 0 recs
RE: The great Obama sedative program

Rate of job losses has slowed from 700K a year to pretty much zero currently. That's what the stimulus was designed to do - arrest the downturn of the economy. Recovery is dependent on a lot of factors, including if there is another stimulus package to boost job creation.

Btw, do you remember the Bush stimulus - right there was one in mid-2008. I suspect you know how effective that one was, if you even remember which sort of answers that question right there.

As for Spain - yup they have currently launched a large spending program. It was certainly more effective than the tax-cut oly strategy they followed when the crises first broke in 08. But I don't blame them too much, afterall the US followed a similar strategy at the time.

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:28AM | 0 recs
RE: The great Obama sedative program

Stimulus wasn't meant to provide jobs. Not reverse the trend. It could slow down the trend, but there was no guarantee it would bring about an absolute reduction of the old unemployment numbers. Stimulus did give people jobs they probably would not have. How do you know unemployment wouldnt have been worse than 9.7%?

 

It's funny how you guys attack trivial programs like the stimulus which are only a small part of the budget but do not get outraged enough at the programs people like Byah have supported. Where was Bayh's concern for the budget when he supported Bush's military policy and people like Lieberman whose views have  bankrupted our treasury with ridiculous defense spending that hasn't done an efficient job of getting rid of the terrorists.

by Pravin 2010-02-16 11:57AM | 0 recs
Spain cut taxes to get itself of out the recession

who is telling you this shit? Do you even know where Spain is?

by ND22 2010-02-15 11:16PM | 0 recs
RE: Amen

You got the Greece problem all wrong. Greece was in problem before but it worsened the problem by cooking the books with the help of Goldman Sachs. In any case we have multiple problems now, most of them generated by Republicans:

1. A massive increase in Medicare entitlement, called Medicare plan D, which has been unpaid for.

2. Two humungous tax cuts under George W. Bush that has a forecasted deficit of 2 trillion, which hopefully will not be renewed, that has not been paid for.

3. Two wars that are costing over a trillion dollars, which have not been paid for.

4. A medicare entitlement program that is riddled with wasteful spending (including the Republican brain child Medicare plus, which is just another way of giving free tax payer money to private insurers) and is sorely in need of comprehensive reform but unlikely to get Republican support as it caters to their voting demographics (seniors 60+ age group).

5. A recession caused by unregulated trading that has left the governement as the single largest entity that can create jobs.

 

So this notion among "centrists" (and people who are afraid to be called republicans) that Democrats are spending too much really does not pass the smell test. They complain a lot but don't say who will pay for points 1-4 which constitute the bulk of federal deficit, Santa Claus?

by tarheel74 2010-02-15 02:52PM | 2 recs
Runaway entitlements are the problem

Your response to the current wave of overspending (e.g, an $800 billion sedative program) seems to be, "hey, Bush did it too!" So, are we going to double-down on stupid? Wouldn't it be better to do things differently than Bush, given the mess he created?

Unfunded liabilities for Medicare are now estimated by its Board of Trustees at $38 trillion. When the government created Medicare in 1966, the projection was for inflation-adjusted annual costs to rise to $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $107 billion, and we all know what's happened since then. So much for government estimates on health care.....but what the hell? Let's layer in one more entitlement program with nationalized health care; it's only money.

Entitlement reform would be a good place to start; anything else is just kicking the can down the road to the next generation. Evan Bayh was derided whenever he raised the topic; it's no wonder he's decided to move on. Good for him; I hope he does become a lobbyist and that he makes a ton of money.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-15 03:39PM | 0 recs
RE: Runaway entitlements are the problem

Nope, I am not saying Bush did it too, instead I am saying Bush did it and the Democratic congress is left with the tab and the thankless job of cleaning up the mess.

You say and quite correctly that there is a huge problem with medicare. But while you are quick to point the problem you offer no solution. There are two solutions to medicare crisis:

1. Have significant reform to Medicare payment, which means scale back the unfunded parts, Part D and Medicare plus; also control the runaway and untenable costs of health care.

The first part can be done without a penny being spent and while liberal Demcrats have long advocated for it, it is blocked by conservative Dems and republicans.

The second part is more tricky and can only be dealt with a comprehensive health care bill. That is the place where we have a log-jam. The liberal Democrats are in favor of curtailing wasteful spending in medicare (thus you have the "death panel" slander) and making medicare something people buy into, in other words the money I am paying to medicare, if I pay some more I will actually see some benefit from it now instead of 30 years later. At the same time they want to curtail insurance costs and health care waste such that more people are able to afford insurance rather than break the bank and see the GDP go under. But thanks to conservative Dems and Republicans we don't see any of that. The reason I think we lost a lot of political capital on healthcare is because the Democratic administration decided to make way too many concessions to the conservatives leaving a bill that does not save any money for the people (therefore it has no effect on the GDP) and at the same time does some token entitlement reform.

2. Get rid of Medicare altogether. Let me see one Republican or Democrat say that publicly if they have the balls.

 

 

by tarheel74 2010-02-15 04:16PM | 0 recs
RE: Runaway entitlements are the problem

On 2. The Republicans don't have the balls. That's why after the Ryan budget came out the GOP leadership distanced itself from it.

by vecky 2010-02-15 05:08PM | 0 recs
RE: Runaway entitlements are the problem

" Unfunded liabilities for Medicare are now estimated by its Board of Trustees at $38 trillion. When the government created Medicare in 1966, the projection was for inflation-adjusted annual costs to rise to $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $107 billion "

Now here I thought you atleast would pretend to know something about the 70's and 80's as you keep going on and on about Reagan and Carter and JFK. Evidently you forgot the high inflation following the oil-shock, even I know that a dollar in '90 was not equal to a dollar in '66. Please try and stick to the full facts. As A. Pope used to say:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:"

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:41AM | 0 recs
RE: Amen

It's people like Bayh that did little to curb Bush's war spending. So much for fiscal santiy. Fiscal sanity seems to be a matter of perspective among biased folk. I see waste in everything. Why is it that Bayh likes to mouth off on wasteful spending domestically but did little to curb the same kind of nation building in Iraq? What about domestic nation building? Each child that gets an inadequate education or is stuck in a bad family with little government help in bailing them out of that situation is a future fiscal and moral loss for the country.

What I wish Democrats would do more of is use cost benefit analysis, the very tool fiscal conservative LEANING independents might see sense in. Would you spend 200,000 for incremental security improvements to your home in case of a burglar break-in in your neighborhood? That is how ridiculous the questionable spending on Homeland Security is. It seems like people like Bayh are willing to give a blank check when it comes to politics of fear, but get fiscally conservative when it comes to the politics of hope.

by Pravin 2010-02-15 08:22PM | 1 recs
RE: too bad

You are a crazy neocon who has been acting moderate on this blog for a while. I remember you shilling for the Lieberman types in the past and his crazy Iraq war type ideas. Guess what gave us big deficit. Not social spending.

 

I am actually one of those MYDDers who has been against new taxes. I actually believe neither party does enough to control spending.  However, any rational person will say that defense spending has been mainly responsible for our deficits.

 

So what is this out of control spending by the liberals you want to point out? Use facts, not talking points.

by Pravin 2010-02-15 04:32PM | 1 recs
See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

Something smells here - it will be interesting to see how long it takes to come out.

Re: Bayh (D Aetna) - wonder how long it will take for his wife's board position on this of that megasurance company to disappear?  He's off to a cushy lobbyist position selling out the people for fun and profit -

No great loss - at least now we have a chance to put a real Dem in his seat. Know that chance is small but at least its a chance.  Now wouldn't it be nice to see Blanche Lincoln (D WalMart) split too -

 

by mwfolsom 2010-02-15 02:10PM | 0 recs
RE: See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

Have fun trying to elect a so-called "Real Democrat" in Iniana.

I just want to know why he's leaving.

by spirowasright 2010-02-15 02:36PM | 0 recs
RE: See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

Supposedly it's too partisan in the Senate... I think like Dorgan once his cherised idea (the deficit commision) went down in flames becasue of partisan politics he decided to throw in the towel.

by vecky 2010-02-15 02:52PM | 0 recs
RE: See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

I'm intrigued, but I'd have to think about that some more.  The Deficit commission got 40 Dem and 13 Rep votes (it needed 60, of course).  It would've gotten 60 if the seven Republicans who cosponsored the legislation had voted for it instead of against it.  I guess the big question is how this went down.  Was Reid counting on having seven more Republican votes?  Did Reid know it was going to fail and didn't whip the seven extra votes anyhow?  I wonder. 

The degree to which Dorgan and Bayh are shooting their own party in the foot, it only makes sense if they are mad at Reid for allowing it to fail.  This suggests Reid knew ahead of time that it was dead and failed to whip the extra votes.  Still, it seems odd to blame the Dems for getting 40 votes on this when seven Republican cosponsors backed down.  Dunno.

by the mollusk 2010-02-15 03:04PM | 0 recs
RE: See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

Maybe Bayh didn't like Reid's jobs bill stunt last Friday?

by LordMike 2010-02-15 03:08PM | 0 recs
RE: See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

Hope Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the decency to retire and allow Obama to nominate someone young to replace her instead of waiting to retire or die when Jeff Sessions becomes the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair!

by Boilermaker 2010-02-15 03:09PM | 1 recs
RE: See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

OTOH if Bush can nominate someone like Alito and Kennedy and get them confirmed in a closely divided Senate, why can't Obama have someone Ginsburgs-like to take over from Ginsburg? It's not like he's replacing Scalia or Thomas - and even if he was, isn't that his constituional perogative as C-in-C?

by vecky 2010-02-15 05:11PM | 0 recs
United Republican opposition

vs not-so-united Democratic opposition. Feingold even voted for Roberts.

 

by ND22 2010-02-15 05:36PM | 0 recs
RE: See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

Closely divided? GOP had a five seat majority, while the best the Dems can hope for now is a two or three seat majority, and with Judiciary Committee Chairman Sessions forget it. Rehnquist would have quit had he lived, because he knew the GOP had an even chance of loosing the Senate in 2006. Ginsberg knows that Dems could loose the Senate in 2010, but she is too selfish to quit. That is the major difference between the GOP and Dems. If Rehnquist and Scalia were put in the same spot, they would likely quit now!

by Boilermaker 2010-02-15 06:05PM | 0 recs
RE: See ya! - Wouldn't want to be ya!

Well the problem with us is that we give up without even trying. Who cares who is Judiciary Committee Chairman? The nominee deserves a hearing and following that a full up-or-down vote. The Dems were in charge when Bork was nominated in '87, and he did get a vote that was 42-58. You will notice no fillibuster, his confirmation lost by majority vote.

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:54AM | 0 recs
With this second update

It seems that perhaps that this was planned very carefully.  With less than a week for Republicans to nominate a strong opponent to the presumptive nominee Evan Bayh, they nominate Dan Coats, a lobbyist with carpetbagging issues.   We pretty much prevented Mike Pence or Mitch Daniels from seeking the seat, both of whom would have been strong candidates against a non-incumbent Democrat.

by Khun David 2010-02-15 04:07PM | 2 recs
Just a couple of points

Evan Bayh is getting out of DC, in order to run for the Presidency starting 4 years from now.

Bayh was Obama's second choice for VP (ahead of Kaine and behind Biden according to Plouffe), so a potential Biden exit puts that back in play.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-02-15 05:52PM | 0 recs
Biden

Is there a chance that Biden won't be on the ticket in 2012?

I would think that Bayh on the ticket would be a kiss of death for Obama among progressives.

by Charles Lemos 2010-02-15 06:00PM | 0 recs
Well Bayh was winning reelection by 20 points

he's clearly not an unpopular figure. I'm not sure any progressive who would hold out his or her vote because of Bayh is relevant.

by ND22 2010-02-15 06:27PM | 0 recs
We talking two different things

We're not discussing his re-election prospects but rather the notion that Jerome suggested that Biden might not be the VP nominee on the ticket in 2012 and that Bayh might then get that nod. And I countered that I would think that having an Obama-Bayh ticket wouldn't be well-received among progressives. My sense is that such a ticket would keep a large percentage of progressives at home in 2012.

by Charles Lemos 2010-02-15 06:37PM | 0 recs
RE: We talking two different things

If Bayh is on the ticket, and OBama's adminstration shows no improvement in the next two years, I guarantee I am  voting for either Ron Paul or Nader as a protest vote.

 

I may consider voting for that ticket only if Obama improves his administration to a significant extent. How can we win an election if Republicans will just bring up Bayh's statements in the past against him. Will Bayh be able to sell the administration's ideas in a campaign? I dont think so. You need a VP who can dig in and sell your presidency with conviction.

by Pravin 2010-02-15 08:27PM | 0 recs
RE: We talking two different things

What kind of improvement would you like to see?

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:49AM | 0 recs
RE: We talking two different things

I want to see contractors who misuse government money be punished , sued and fined accordingly.

I think public officials who are unable to maintain proper cost controls need to be held accountable and fired. At the least, not trusted with any more public money.

I would like to see less war spending.

I want to see not only more spending on social issues, but also better explanation of why these programs work by the government.  The more you convince independents that your programs can help, the easier it is to get these programs passed. 

I do not want to see any more bailouts similar to the bank ones where not enough concessions were extracted in exchange for the bailout.

I want to see Obama walk the walk and not just talk the talk. He needs to have more closed door sessions with Democrats and get them all on the same page instead of cutting and running like some seem to be doing right now. No Democrat should be forced to go against his principles, but they need to articulate why they are going another way instead of using lazy talking points.

by Pravin 2010-02-16 12:23PM | 0 recs
My sense

out of the blogsphere, which is essentially irrelevant, no knows who the fuck Evan Bayh is.

by ND22 2010-02-15 11:02PM | 0 recs
RE: My sense

Bayh might have been a better choice in 2008 - get a worthless person out of the senate, have a comfortable hold on the DE seat, have a good chance of holding the IN seat, esp if Obama wins IN (as it runs out he did). But I like Biden as VP, sigh.

I doubt Obama will chosee Bayh in 2012. Obama will choose someone who can carry the torch in 2016. Obama had a chance to choose bayh in 08 when no one, not even progressives, would have said anything negative. He's not going to choose him now.

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:48AM | 0 recs
Who would Obama replace Biden with?

Seriously.  The only Democrat likely to be around after the Democratic bench is decimated in 2010 is likely to be Hillary, and Im pretty sure that she doesnt want to be VP(and she will also be getting up there in the years). 

by Kent 2010-02-15 09:58PM | 0 recs
What about Cory Booker?

Cory Booker seems really impressive and not just from an oratorical POV. But I do not know if Obama's disappointing tenure so far will make your typical white voter wary of another smooth talking charismatic african american leader on the same ticket. Unless they see Booker actually governs. Any NJ residents care to shed some light on Booker and if he is for real?

I think the younger progressive Democratic Party leaders need to step up too instead of just accepting their fate. They should find a way to sell the progressive message using the cost benefit analysis of programs they espouse and stop saying we must be ready for more taxes. I like the idea of the war tax. If people are going to blindly support a war, then let's fund the war through a separate tax and see if people really support the war.

by Pravin 2010-02-15 10:31PM | 0 recs
huh?

They should find a way to sell the progressive message using the cost benefit analysis of programs they espouse and stop saying we must be ready for more taxes.

yeah, even I'm confused now. How do you think the rest of the public is going to think?

Did you have a typo, you said they need to stop saying we must be ready for more taxes and then you suggested a tax. Did you mean START saying?

by ND22 2010-02-15 11:35PM | 0 recs
RE: huh?

Yeah, it was sloppy wording by me combining a few thoughts gathered while reading other comments. I think it was vecky or someone else who suggested war taxes. My idea is to expose what the taxes go to by renaming part of the taxes collected as a war tax since it seems to be a big enough chunk to deserve its own name. I wonder if enough people would really support the wars so blindly if they were made to realize explicitly how much they were paying for it. It is no different from people refusing to pay more than a few thousand for a security system even if there exists systems that make them incrementally safer.

by Pravin 2010-02-16 12:13PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads