Evan Bayh For President

by LA Democrat, Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 12:42:56 PM EST

Evan Bayh is America's best chance of getting a Democratic President. He plays well in the Midwest--securing usually swing states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa while ensuring that Indiana will be in the Democratic column. There is a real chance that Senator Evan Bayh could not only win but win in an absolute landslide.

He's pro-choice and pro-environment. He believes in finding new renewable resources and relax our dependancy on Middle Eastern/Foreign Oil. For a long time in the political world, it's been argued that a governor has a better chance of getting elected than a congressional representative or senator. While, Evan Bayh has been governor of Indiana. He won re-election as governor with the largest percentage of statewide vote ever. Along with his landslide victories as governor, as Senator, Bayh has won 60+ percentage of the vote each and everytime he has run for election or re-election.

All the states Kerry won: 252

  • Iowa 7
  • Indiana 11
------------
270 EXTREMELY DO-ABLE.

It's time to put the United back in the United States of America: Evan Bayh for President.

Tags: (all tags)

  • 121 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

121 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Yep
Have you joined our yahoo group and signed up for the mailing list?
by kydem 2005-11-02 01:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nope
Evan Bayh is exactly the same as John Kerry. He's a boring representative of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

When will we learn to start picking our candidates well? When we stop looking at the numbers and start looking in ourselves? I want someone who inspires me and what I believe in. Not someone thinks they "can win" because of their homestate and boring accent.

by Covin 2005-11-02 01:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nope
Evan has the ability to connect.
by kydem 2005-11-02 01:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nope
Not in any speech I have seen him in.  There are MUCH better choices out there.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 07:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nope
Bayh's not the flashiest speaker around but he is certainly better than Kerry, though that isn't saying much.
by jkfp2004 2005-11-02 03:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
EVAN BAYH
Have you ever heard any of Mr. Bayh's speeches or read about his stances? Evan Bayh has long represented the Democratic Party and has been a loyal member of the Party. Sure, he's not as liberal as Mr. Feingold, but he speaks to mainstream America. Something many of the potential democrats cannot speak to such as Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold. But it's not able what other candidates can't do. It's about what Mr. Bayh has done for the state of Indiana and if he lacked the ability to inspire, how was he able to inspire 60+% of a Solid Republican State to vote for him? Read "From Father to Son: A Private Life in the Public Eyes." There you can understand how he was brought up, how he became who he was, and why he also would make such a great leader for America. Yes, many of the Democratic leaders would make great presidents for America, but I think Mr. Bayh can united a fractured United States of America tat has too long been divided between the red states and the blue states. He'll finally be able to tell all Americans what he believes in and not just the purple states. It's time to put the United back in the United States of America: Evan Bayh for President.
by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 01:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: EVAN BAYH
Mainstream America wants out of the war and he voted for it.
by Dameocrat 2005-11-03 04:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: EVAN BAYH
Yes, His speeches are lackluster, he voted for the bankruptcy bill that SCREWS mainstream Americans and voted yes on the war which is KILLING mainstream Americans.  He doesn't deserve to be our nominee.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 07:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
He's a mediocre Democrat
that doesn't deserve the presidential nomination. This is the guy that criticized Democrats for taking the wrong course on national security - saying that they should be more agressive with things like the War in Iraq. This is the guy that voted for the bankruptcy act and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Why should I support this guy?

"It's about what Mr. Bayh has done for the state of Indiana and if he lacked the ability to inspire, how was he able to inspire 60+% of a Solid Republican State to vote for him?"

hmm, maybe because he's the son of the popular Senator Birch Bayh, who most Indianans grew up to know and admire greatly (my mother from Indiana, still is able to recount a childhood sing-a-long about him). Without that, he'd be nothing.

by KainIIIC 2005-11-02 03:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He's a mediocre Democrat
No way. Your daddy's name doesn't give you 80% approval ratings, or make your tenure as governor an unqualified success.

"This is the guy that criticized Democrats for taking the wrong course on national security - saying that they should be more agressive with things like the War in Iraq."

I think you're really distorting that. IIRC, he pointed out that democrats were stigmatized unfairly with the title of "weak on national security". He wasn't actively dem-bashing.

by JRyan 2005-11-02 05:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He's a mediocre Democrat
People seem to forget that his daddy Birch Bayh was more liberal than his son and that he got booted out of office by Dan "Hawaii is a part of the United States" Quayle.

That said, I'm not sold on Bayh yet. Bayh needs to offer more than 'electability'. He could probably win. He probably would win. The problem is that I'm not convinced he'd fight for a progressive agenda while battling a Republican Congress. Can he carry the country with him? He hasn't shown that by voting for the Energy Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill.

by crazymoloch 2005-11-03 01:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I could see it
Still a little worried about the Senator thing but if there is a deep red state that we should be winning it's Indiana, and Bayh can deliver it for us.
by jkfp2004 2005-11-02 03:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Evan Bayh co-sponsored an IWR
Evan Bayh, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman (along with Zell Miller and a couple of other DINOs) co-sponsored S.J. 46 (107th congress) which was the equivalent of Hastert's H.J. 114 which was the "IWR" that was eventually passed by the congress.

Here are is a collection of facts and links about "the IWR", and its relatives:

  1. The Bill page for H.J. 114 (joint Iraq war resolution that was passed by the 107th congress): Link

  2. A human-readable text of the Res.: Link

  3. House Roll Call (296 Yeas, 133 Nays, 3 NV): Link

  4. Senate Roll Call (77 Yeas, 23 Nays): Link

  5. Sponsor: Hastert. Cosponsors (136): list

  6. Other similar proposals: S.J.Res. 45 (Daschle-Lott), H.J.Res. 114 (Hastert-Gephardt), S.J.Res. 46 (Lieberman) were modified proposals.

  7. A more sensible version with check and balances was drafted by Al Hastings in his H.J.Res. 110, but it  was not considered on the floor. Link.

  8. Senate Co-sponsors for S.J. 46 (Lieberman's Senate equivalent Joint Res.). Link

Sen Lieberman, Joe (Author)
Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] - 10/2/2002
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 10/7/2002
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 10/2/2002
Sen Breaux, John B. [LA] - 10/9/2002
Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] - 10/4/2002
Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 10/2/2002
Sen Edwards, John [NC] - 10/3/2002
Sen Helms, Jesse [NC] - 10/2/2002
Sen Hutchinson, Tim [AR] - 10/2/2002
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 10/7/2002
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 10/2/2002
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 10/2/2002
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 10/2/2002
Sen Miller, Zell [GA] - 10/2/2002
Sen Thurmond, Strom [SC] - 10/10/2002
Sen Warner, John [VA] - 10/2/2002

Total 17. Republicans 10, "Democrat Hawks" 7 (including 2 Lieberzellocrats)
by NeoLiberal 2005-11-02 03:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Cost of the IWR and the War
From here and here (as of today):

  1. 2031 US deaths
  2. 198 allied forces deaths
  3. between 26000 and 31000  iraqi civilian deaths
  4. Unknown Iraqi combat deaths
  5. $216 Billion spent + $50 billion more just approved.
  6. Completely lost credibility of our nation around the world

And still no end in sight, a total godforsaken quagmire.

Those that voted for the IWR, and especially those that promoted the war by sponsoring/co-sponsoring War Resolutions should NEVER be allowed to run our country. End of story.

by NeoLiberal 2005-11-02 04:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Evan Bayh co-sponsored an IWR
However, he would not have voted for the war had he known what he knows today.

Just because a Democrat votes in favor of the resolution does not make them a DINO.

by kydem 2005-11-02 04:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Evan Bayh co-sponsored an IWR
Please see my comment below.
by NeoLiberal 2005-11-02 04:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Evan Bayh co-sponsored an IWR
Well, many of the Democrats including Evan Bayh and Mary Landrieu said if they know what they know now they would not vote for the War in Iraq. They made a mistake in believing the President of the United States--believing that the leader of the Free World would not manipulate intelligence to foster the War in Iraq and put the lives of thousands in the line. Earlier today, Ms. Feinstein on CNN said that she would not have voted for the War and believes she was manipulated to authorize the vote for war.

Many Americans made the mistake of believing the President Bush. Since the war has prolonged, millions of Americans have disapproved and felt they were deceived--much like Democratic Senators Mary Landrieu and Evan Bayh. So, would I rather a president who can't admit when he made a mistake or would I rather leaders who learned from them and know better for next time? I choose the latter and selecting a democrat from a strategically unimportant location like New York, Delaware or lack experience will only allow this party of lies and deceive live on.

ALSO: WEST WING LIVE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE SUN. 7PM CENTRAL TIME ON NBC.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 04:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
well i haven't seen it
please, if you have quotes where bayh renounced his war vote and condemned the president, post them.  because i sure as hell haven't seen it.  i'd love to.

i would also love it if the good senator wouuld quit going to the media and perpetuating GOP smears.  when he learns to SHFPH and stop breaking ranks with the party leadership then maybe i'll consider him.  but until then, forget it.

i understand that he'd done the people of indiana well, and good on him for doing so.  but i don't accept him as a national candidate. no way, no how.

by annatopia 2005-11-02 05:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Evan Bayh co-sponsored an IWR
Well Sure... Its easy to renounce a war that is wildly unpopular.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 07:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Extremely Silly:
Mr. Bayh didn't win 60+% of the vote for 4 or 5 consecutive elections he was up for because the people of Indiana respected his father. Please. Give me a break. Wih that very thinking, the people of Louisiana's 3rd Congressional District should've voted for Billy Tauzin III since they loved and admired his father so much. Utter nonsense! Bayh's policies speak to the people of Indiana and to middle of the road Americans. Every potential Democratic candidate has voted for things that mainstream liberals would not agree with. Example, Feingold's vote for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Hillary Clinton's vote to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State. I mean there are things that each one of us may disagree with; however, Mr. Bayh has been an overall loyal Democrat with the policies that will not only make the Democratic Party a viable party in American politics but a majority party once more.

I honestly think we can win back middle America in states like Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Iowa, and West Virginia--states that I think other candidates don't stand a chance in. Unite America Again and support Bayh for President.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 04:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Extremely Silly:
I know that Bayh is popular in Indiana, but that is no guarentee he is going to win the state.  Gore didn't win Tennessee.  I do business with a lot of people in Indiana and have asked them about Bayh.  When I asked them about Bayh, they all liked him as a Senator.  But when asked if they would vote for him for president, the response was not as enthusiastic.  It is still a solidly republican state and a guy like Allen or Brownback could win it over Bayh, although it would probably be close.  

THis is by no means scientific but don't count Indiana as a guarentee.  

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 07:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Remember that he co-sponsored
Co-sponsorship means that they were promoting the war resolution and hence the war itself, instead of just taking a side as you would when you vote. And sponsorship/co-sponsoship requires you to get the full set of facts before you jumo onboard. If such facts were not forthcoming, then the legislator should not sign-on as a co-sponsor, especially when the lives of thousands were involved.
by NeoLiberal 2005-11-02 04:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
The facts were wrong.
by kydem 2005-11-02 04:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
What exacly were those "facts" on which basis each senator either sponsored (like Bayh, Edwards and Liberman) or voted for (like Hillary, Kerry etal, and Clark's positions on the IWR were not that different from Kerry's). I haven't heard of anything except for CIA director Tenet's testimony.

Whatever were the "Facts" presented, they needed to be checked and double-checked before co-sponsoring a was with looming catastrophic consequences.

BTW, before I came to know that Bayh was one of the co-sponsors of S.J. 46 Iraq War Resolution, I had a bit of a soft corner towards him as I tend to like Governors, but not anymore.

by NeoLiberal 2005-11-02 04:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
The facts provided by the administration.

Bayh has been very critical of the administration since the vote.  He called for troop protection when Bush did not care.

Bayh is a governor with national security experience.

by kydem 2005-11-02 05:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
"The facts provided by the administration."

It is Congress' responsibility to question and get to the bottom of whatever facts that the adm. provides. Congress is in fact solely responsible to ensure the validity and legitimacy of the proposed grounds for any war proposed by the administration.

"Bayh has been very critical of the administration since the vote."

But, given that he promoted the war by co-sponsoring the IWR S.J.46, his criticality now is the height of hypocrisy.

"He called for troop protection when Bush did not care."

Which is a good thing.

"Bayh is a governor with national security experience. "

But he has a negative "national security experience", since the Iraq War was the single most significant step (way worse than Vietnam, since the stakes involved are astronomically higher) that our goverment has taken in the last 5 years, if not in the last several decades, and Bayh promoted that war.

by NeoLiberal 2005-11-02 05:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
At the time, the administration had evidence, later turned out to be wrong, that Saddam had WMD's.  Bush did not let the UN do their job.  If he did, we wouldn't have lost over 2000 Americans.
by kydem 2005-11-02 05:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
"It is Congress' responsibility to question and get to the bottom of whatever facts that the adm. provides. Congress is in fact solely responsible to ensure the validity and legitimacy of the proposed grounds for any war proposed by the administration."

Sure, it is the Congress responsbility to question the administration; however, the Congress does not receive all the information the President receives and that's according to Diane Feinstein on CNN's "The Situation Room." Sometimes, Congress is put in the position to simply trust the President. Many in Congress along with the American people made a mistake. They have admitted to such and the majority of Americans can understand it such a mistake because they too made that same mistake in trusting the Leader of the Free World. And it is not hypocrisy if you admit you were wrong and knowing what you know now you change your view. In politics, many politicans change their views on stances. That's just the way life is.

"the Iraq War was the single most significant step (way worse than Vietnam, since the stakes involved are astronomically higher)"

Though the Iraq War is a significant step in foreign policy, it is not "worse than Vietnam." That's like watching a basketball game with a great outcome and calling it the game of the century. That is overaction and acting simply in the moment--55.000 Americans died!

by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 05:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored

"the Iraq War was the single most significant step (way worse than Vietnam, since the stakes involved are astronomically higher)"

Though the Iraq War is a significant step in foreign policy, it is not "worse than Vietnam." That's like watching a basketball game with a great outcome and calling it the game of the century. That is overaction and acting simply in the moment--55.000 Americans died!

In terms of body count, Vietnam was worse. But remember that our firepower is tremendously superior now, and that's probably the main reason why the body count isn't in Vietnam range.

Secondly, leaving Vietnam had little consequence to the overall national security of the US. It was just our pride at stake. But leaving Iraq before it stabilizes would most likely create a ghastly regional war, in the heart of the most volatile region on the planet, and one can only imagine the global repurcussions thereafter.

Thirdly, don't forget the number of iraqi deaths too. That's about 30K civilian and maybe 100-200K combat deaths.

Considering all these, in the overall picture, Iraq is the quagmire which Vietnam could barely even approach, and that's before we get into the financial cost (we are spending at twice the rate ($100B per year) of what the fed. gov. spends on education (about $50B per year)).

Those who promoted it (and those supported it to a lesser extent) must be asked to suffer the consequences of their thoughtlessness and carelessness.

---

by NeoLiberal 2005-11-02 05:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
"don't forget the number of iraqi deaths too. That's about 30K civilian and maybe 100-200K combat deaths."

Dude, 1.5 million Vietnamese died in the War alone. I think it's just not justified to say that the Vietnam War was less significant than the War in Iraq. Back than, Eastern Asia was an important part in the War aganist Communism. It too was strategically important for America. I do not agree with both wars, but to say that the War in Iraq is more significant than the Vietnam Conflict is silliness to the extreme.

You are so anti-Bayh that you will say anything and blame him for anything. Please, tell me who you plan on supporting.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 06:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
and we failed both times
that notion that vietnam had something to do with stopping communism needs to be put to rest.  it's long past time to admit that the "domino theory" failed miserably, as communism is still alive and well in asia.

the same goes for iraq.  twenty, thirty, fourty, fifty years from now there will still be theocracies and muslim states in the middle east.  no western warrior is going t change that fact.

so yea,  i think the comparison is apt.  and bayh is part of the group which co-sponsored the IWR.  until i see an actual quote from him where he renounces his sponsorship and vote, then he doesn't get to make the national radar.

and yea, i've got a litmus test for dems in 06 and 08:  you are either against this war or you are against america, plain and simple.  you renounce your war support or you get no time and money from me.  it's not that harad to figure out that the public has finally turned against georgie's great iraqi adventure, and now is the time for all democrats to rise up and offer the american people a way out of the quagmire.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 06:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
Its not that we are Anti-Bayh, its that we think Bayh is a terrible choice for President.  If we are going to pick someone from a Red-State, I would much rather have Mark Warner than Bayh.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 07:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Remember that he co-sponsored
"You are so anti-Bayh that you will say anything and blame him for anything. Please, tell me who you plan on supporting."

Actually, you may surprised to hear that it hasn't even been two weeks since I was telling someone that I kind of liked Bayh among the IWR voters. But, the co-sponsorship of the IWR S.J. 46 completely turned me off from him. Sponsorship is way more agregious than simply voting.

Personally, I will NOT support anyone in any election that sponsored or co-sponsored the Iraq War. I may at best reluctantly vote for one, should the GOP candidate be also a similar warhawk, but will neither publicly endorse nor contribute/campaign for any promoters of that war. BTW, that applies to the sponsors of the House version of the bill too. Here are co-sponsors from the house.

My point reg. Iraq war being more important is this: there are some half billion people in the region, with a pivotal economic resource that makes the world go around at stake. So, fucking around with such as a situation carries far more gravitas, especially since leaving the mess as is could be a disaster of incredible proportions.

by NeoLiberal 2005-11-03 10:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Don't believe the propaganda
But leaving Iraq before it stabilizes would most likely create a ghastly regional war, in the heart of the most volatile region on the planet, and one can only imagine the global repurcussions thereafter.

There were catastrophic consequences predicted for pulling out of Nam as well. It was going to be the first step in a rolling communist takeover of the Far East, then Africa, South America and resulting in America sharing a border with communist Mexico.

The Middle East has been at war for centuries and will be at war for centuries, whether we stay or go. "Stabilizing" Iraq is a 50-100 year project. Maybe more.

Do you think we will ever pull out of South Korea? The Korean penninsula should be "stabilized" any decade now.

Stabilization is a fairy tale that neo-cons tell their grandchildren to scare them into growing up to be good little warmongers.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-03 01:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Don't believe the propaganda
I'll attest to the mideast...I know.  I'm Jewish.
by kydem 2005-11-03 01:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
lame excuse
sorry but if i, a lowly citizen, using the mass media and the president and internet as a resource, could accurately predict that we'd be in a quagmire if we went to iraq, then bayh should have been able to do the same.
by annatopia 2005-11-03 10:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Evan Bayh is not 100% Pro-Choice
Senator Evan Bayh does NOT fully support a woman's right to choose. Evan Bayh voted for an unconstitutional ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortions.  This bill was sponsored by Rick Santorum and did NOT include an exception for the health of the mother.  President Bush eventually signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban into law. Fortunately, the courts have ruled that the ban is unconstitutional.

These are excerpts from an article in the Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report on 06/26/00.

"When consulted by Gore aides about several possible running mates, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League expressed their concern about Bayh's "troublesome record."  

"Margie Kelly of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy said, "You cannot support choice and support the partial-birth ban at the same time. They are not compatible."

Never heard of Marge Kelly?  Let's look at Dr. Howard Dean's position on the partial birth abortion ban - from 10/02/03:

"As a physician, I am outraged that the House of Representatives has decided it is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion' in medical literature. But there are times when a doctor is called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman's life or protect her from serious injury. Today the House took a step toward making it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures.

"This bill will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the lives of countless women. Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights and overturning Roe v. Wade."

Evan Bayh voted FOR the Senate version of this bill.

Evan Bayh clearly has a diffent position on this issue than Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Russ Feingold, and even Rudy Giuliani. Rather than side with the majority of Democrats, Evan Bayh chose to join forces with Bill Frist, Rick Santorum and George W. Bush on this important issue.

What would Evan Bayh's position be on California's Proposition 73 regarding parental notification for abortions?  Does anyone know?

by whodat527 2005-11-02 04:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Evan Bayh is not 100% Pro-Choice
Bayh believes in safe, legal, and rare.
by kydem 2005-11-02 05:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
then he should have voted against that bill
because there is no other kind of third trimester abortion performed than ones that are safe, legal, and rare.  
by annatopia 2005-11-02 05:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Evan Bayh is not 100% Pro-Choice
You know that Bayh's wife very publically miscarried (was supposed to be twins I believe) a pregnancy, don't you? He's been through the emotional horror of having expected a child, having come to think of a child in the womb as "alive" and having witnessed its death.

Do you really think this issue is some kind of political game for him???

Bayh is 100% in favor of the Roe decision (Bayh voted for a sense of the senate resolution supporting Roe the very same day he voted for the partial-birth ban), has repeatedly voted to expand womens' access to family planning resources, wants to allow abortions on military installations, and has repeatedly voted against bush judicial nominees who would threaten the right to choose.

Bayh has actually vetoed a partial-birth abortion bill that he thought did not go far enough to take into account womens health concerns. He did this in defiance of an overwhelmingly pro-life Indiana legislature (and he did this after his wife miscarried, mind you).

by blueflorida 2005-11-02 07:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
then that certainly doesn't make sense
if he voted a third trimester abortion ban in indiana, why didn't he have the good sense to vote against the ban as a senator?  sorry, but that "sense of the senate" vote doesn't provide cover because it didn't change any laws.  the third trimester abortion ban DID change laws and endangered the lives of american women.

screw evan bayh.  he doesn't even seem to know what he stands for.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 06:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: then that certainly doesn't make sense
You of the "vote for IWR=vote for war" school of thought now want to claim that sense of the senate resolutions don't matter?

C'mon, why don't you take off your cynic hat for just a second, and acknowledge the guy is clearly genuinely conflicted on the issue. He's routinely stood up for the core principle of the right to choose, while representing a state that is decidedly pro-life. His own personal experience leads him to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you can both believe in the right to choose, but also want to protect life in the womb that has progressed past a certain critical point.

From the text of the Roe vs. Wade decision:

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Bayh vetoed one partial birth ban because he didn't think it met this standard. He voted for another because in his mind he thought it did. It wasn't inconsistent for him to do so, and it seems to me that he knows exactly what he believes in.

by blueflorida 2005-11-03 02:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: then that certainly doesn't make sense
I couldn't have said it better myself.
by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 03:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
but the thing is, it didn't
first, i would really appreciate it if you and everyone else on this thread would STOP using the frank luntz poll-tested term "partial birth abortion".  there is NO SUCH THING.

now moving on, the bill that passed congress did not provide an exception for the health of the mother, that is why it was struck down in federal circuit court.  it was extremely clear from the language of the bill that it provided no exceptions; it was a full out ban. every media outlet even said it was a full out ban.  i'm sorry, but if evan bayh is supposed to be so intelligent, how could he fail to see that the bill was a complete and total ban?

it didn't pass the smell test, and bayh voted for it anyway.  i won't speculate on his motives at all, after all i don't know the guy.  but the bill was clearly a ban and he voted for it.

by annatopia 2005-11-04 06:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Forget Electability
Bayh is one of the best choices for president not because of his electability, but because he's one brilliant guy. Bayh was the most successful governor of the 90's, and as he said on saturday, he brought a state that was 40th in education to 9th place. Out of all the democratic contenders, he (and Warner and Feingold too, to be fair) would know how to run the country effectively and dig us out of the massive hole Bush drove us into. The fact that he has massive red state appeal is only an added bonus.
by JRyan 2005-11-02 05:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Forget Electability
Bravo! Bravo!

I think Evan Bayh and Mark Warner would make the Democratic Party proud. They both have been govenors of states and have successfully run those states--making education better and the lives of the citizens of those states. A Bayh-Warner ticket would be great!

by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 05:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Agreed
by JRyan 2005-11-02 05:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Forget Electability
Believe me, I'm a fan of Bayh/Warner or Bayh/Feingold.
by kydem 2005-11-02 05:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Bayh is not pro-choice, never has been. Democrats seriously need a new frame on being pro-choice other than holding on to Roe, which has become an albatross around the neck of the party. Nevertheless, Bayh has never proven he's either pro-choice or has a sustainable answer to this question.  

I'm not sure of any state he plays well in outside of Indiana. Nothing against the guy but he's a silver spoon who wouldn't occupy the position he has in Indiana politics if it weren't for his daddy. Kind of sounds like the same nonsense we've got now.

Bayh is not pro-environment, never has been. He's consistently been a spokesman for the same "balanced approach" propaganda which comes from the Bush White House. The environment, our life support system, will die a little slower death under President Bayh than Bush, that's all.

There's absolutely no guarantee Bayh could deliver Indiana, or more importantly, Ohio, the only two states from the Northwest Territory Ordinance which refuse to wake up and smell the coffee.

If he leaves his Senate seat open, a Repug likely fills the gap. He'll likely suffer the same end his father did when he pursued the presidency.

Ain't gonna happen.

by Seldom Seen Smith 2005-11-02 05:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
You know, to be perfectly honest, he may not have been elected governor without his last name. Since then, however, he has proven himself a capable leader in his own right. He has one heck of a record as governor.

Bayh has been part of the safe, legal and rare crowd. So he's not 100% pro-choice. So what?

"There's absolutely no guarantee Bayh could deliver Indiana, or more importantly, Ohio, the only two states from the Northwest Territory Ordinance which refuse to wake up and smell the coffee."

That is where you're wrong. Just look at Bayh's election records. He has crushed all his opponents since 1988. He would definately carry his home state. It's as good as guaranteed. As for Ohio, I personally think he could carry it easily, but it is useless to argue about it. For example, I could say that there is no guarantee that Russ Feingold could take Ohio; that would be just as meaningless a sentence.

"If he leaves his Senate seat open, a Repug likely fills the gap."

Howard Dean left his governorship open, and a repug filled the gap. John Edwards left his senate seat open, and a repug filled the gap. That's life and politics.

by JRyan 2005-11-02 05:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
See my comment above.  Just because someone wins a Senate race doesn't mean they get elected as President by their state.  My informal polling says Indiana would be close.  Show me some real polls from the state and then you prove your point.  Until then, he could just as easily lose Indiana as win it.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 07:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Bayh won in a republican year with 62%. It is near-ridiculous to say that more than 12% of those voters would simply abandon him in 2008. Do I expect him to win Indiana with the same blowout numbers? No, but he will win it. By the way, Gore barely tried in Tennessee, and not to insult him, but by 2000 he was a little out of touch. Bayh, unlike Gore, was actually governor of the state, and is still extremely popular.

"Just because someone wins a Senate race doesn't mean they get elected as President by their state."

I doubt you would say the same thing if people were saying that Feingold could carry Wisconsin, or that Warner could carry Virginia.

by JRyan 2005-11-03 07:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Warner against Allen worries the hell out of me in Virginia.  Virginia is red but not as red as Indiana, so against a lot of other candidates it will be different... however, I can see Warner losing to a McCain type Candidate.  Wisconsin is a Purple state, so I have little doubt that Feingold takes the state... if it was a solid red state, then I would be worried.  Bayh is popular in Indiana as a Senator, but again that doesn't translate.  Yes, Gore didn't try in Tennessee and Bush wisely took advantage.  If Bayh is the nom and his opponent

It doesn't matter.  Bayh doesn't come off as the Anti-Hillary yet, not with HRC's move to the right... and that is the ONLY way he has a shot at winning, unless he changes his speakign style to something less dry and boring.  He is KERRY bad in that department.  

My guess is After NH, this breaks down to 3 candidates...  HRC, A Progressive Candidate (Clark, Feingold or Edwards), and the Anti-HRC (Warner, Edwards, Clark or Bayh).  I am personally betting on Edwards, HRC and Warner, Feingold or Clark... although I say this without having see Clark in a stump speech since 2003-4.  It all depends on how they position themselves... If Edwards goes for Progressive or Anti-HRC... Same with Clark.  It seems as if Bayh will be lost in the mix to me.  

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 08:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
That should have been... If Bayh is the Nom and his opponent strikes at Indiana, Bayh will be forced to defend or lose.  The only person I would feel comfortable with nominating from a state as red as Indiana would be Schweitzer... Mainly because of his lite libertarian message and how well it plays in the West.  But given he is a first term governor (to be fair, Warners biggest strike), I doubt he will run and would have some trouble with the limited experience.  However, He and Obama will be strong candidates in 2012 or (hopefully) 2016.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 08:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
I'd remind you that Schweitzer was elected with around 50-51% of the vote, after a god-awful republican governor, and Bayh is consistently elected with numbers around 62-64%. It also can't be too hard for Bayh to defend Indiana.
by JRyan 2005-11-03 08:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
I am not saying he will lose the state.  On the contrary, he has the best chance to win Indiana of ANY democrat.  All I am saying is he isn't a LOCK to win the state... not in the way Kerry was a lock to win MA or Bush was a lock to win Texas.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 09:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
The Bayh-haters totally contradict their statements. One moment they argue that Bayh wins because of his father's name. The next moment they say Bayh can't win. In that very thinking, shouldn't Bayh win Indiana simply because of his last name?

Stop finding any excuse to derail the evitable train that is President Evan Bayh.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 09:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
The Bayh train is pulling in at just under 2% in the myDD poll.  If Bayh runs, I predict he will be the Joe Lieberman of 2008 -- without the benefit of Lieberman's name recognition.
by whodat527 2005-11-03 09:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
What was Clinton's poll numbers at this time before he 1992 Election? I'm willing to bet it was worst than 2%. 3 years before the electoin--there is plenty of time to win America's love and to ride the rails to victory!!!
by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 09:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
According to a Zogby Poll in August of 2001, John Kerry received 2% of the vote. So, Evan Bayh at 2% right now is alright if he's attempting to win the Democratic Nomination.
by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 09:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
with all due respect
"Stop finding any excuse to derail the evitable train that is President Evan Bayh. "

That's delusional.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 10:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Stop finding any excuse to derail the evitable train that is President Evan Bayh

Come on Man, it is one thing to like the guy.  To make a stupid statement like that is quite another.  Lest we forget the inevitable Dean or Kerry presidencies.

 Nothing I said contradicted my statement.  I think Bayh got elected originally because of his name, but so did Gore and many other politicians.  Bayh did a good enough job to keep getting elected in Indiana.  Fair enough.  

People vote for Presidents different than they do for state offices.  Look at many of the Solid Red States who elected Democratic Governors.  Can Bayh win Indiana?  Sure.  Can he lose Indiana?  Absolutely.  You can't assume he is a lock until polling has been done, etc.  

I don't think Bayh is a good candidate.  He has always reminded me of a more conservative John Kerry.  I have seen him speak on TV and Live and was not impressed.  HRC and Edwards blows him out of the water in terms of stumping ability.  I haven't seen Feingold, but from what I have heard he is pretty good as well.  But even beyond that, you posted this on a progressive blog.  Most of the people here would not be in favor of Bayh.  He isn't a progressive, and is tied in too close to the DLC to gain acceptance this far out.  He runs into the same opposition HRC and Kerry run into.  He is not our idea of a great candidate based on policies, based on past actions and based on personality.    

by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 08:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
That's fine, I basically agree with that statement. However, if Bayh were the nominee, I would be absolutely shocked if he didn't win Indiana.  
by JRyan 2005-11-03 09:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
yes, BUT...
...schweitzer's approval ratings have consistently been in the 60+% range ever since he took office.
by annatopia 2005-11-03 10:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: yes, BUT...
So has Evan Bayh's approval ratings whether it was as Secretary of State of Indiana, Governor of Indiana or Senator of Indiana.

According to Survey USA, Bayh's approval rating is 63% while 31% disapprove.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 10:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
i don't care, really
i'm not trying to be rude, but i couldn't care less what bayh's approval rating is in indiana.  you made the comment that schweitzer got elected with low 50s.  all i was doing was pointing out that schweitzer's approvals have been through the roof since he got elected.  

and let's be honest, enough with this bayh for president crap.  i understand that he has strong support in indiana, and good for him (as i said upthread).  but he does not pass the smell test for national candidacy.  

plus, you guys are totally looking at this the wrong way.  you're arguing for the same FAILED strategy followed by the kerry folks, which was to only compete in the "swing" states.  don't you realise that hypothesis failed miserably and has been rejected by the party leadership?  we're pursuing a 50 state strategy here, guys, not some cherry-picking adventure.  

keep bayh in the senate.  let him continue to serve the people of indiana if they love him so much.

i'm still waiting on some proof of his renunciation of his IWR sponsorship and vote. and yes, THAT IS THE LITMUS TEST for the democratic nominee in 2008.  if you can't back up that claim you made upthread, stop saying he's anti-iraq war now.  and if you can't explain how voting to ban third trimester abortions makes bayh an ally of women, then please keep him in indiana.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 10:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: i don't care, really
"plus, you guys are totally looking at this the wrong way.  you're arguing for the same FAILED strategy followed by the kerry folks, which was to only compete in the "swing" states.  don't you realise that hypothesis failed miserably and has been rejected by the party leadership?  we're pursuing a 50 state strategy here, guys, not some cherry-picking adventure."

I disagree. I believe Bayh is one of the few contenders who actually can pursue a 50-state strategy due to his red-state appeal. Frankly, for contenders like Clinton and Feingold and Kerry, the Southern and many western states will be out of reach, and they would be forced to pursue the swing-state strategy. That doesn't apply to Bayh.  

by JRyan 2005-11-03 10:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
hrm don't think so
you keep saying "red state appeal" over and over and over.  with all due respect, just because you repeat something does not make it true.

i don't care if he had great numbers in indiana.  why?  because indiana is not iowa is not georgia is not nevada is not florida etc etc etc.  just because bayh plays well in indiana (where his family has a long tradition of being in politics) that does not translate into him playing well in other red states.

and yea, you are advocating cherry picking.  because this whole time you've been talking about appealing to red voters, specifically in the south and midwest.  that is cherry picking.

and leave kerry and clinton and feingold out of this.  the subject of this thread is bayh's chances, right?  so let's leave it at that.  

i have seen very little evidence to date to suggest that bayh is onboard with the 50 state strategy.  instead, i've read about him appearing at corporate fundraisers, the DLC meetings, etc etc.  i have no reason to believe he would be anything other than yet another corporate appeaser.

and you're spending so much time here trying to convince this very progressive community to back a DLC centrist?  it's really laughable.  again, not trying to be rude, but really you are barking up the wrong tree here.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 11:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: hrm don't think so
"just because bayh plays well in indiana (where his family has a long tradition of being in politics) that does not translate into him playing well in other red states."

You just can't help yourself bringing up his name, can you? Bayh is popular because of his policies and his personality, not his name. Just because you repeat that over and over doesn't make it true. And his record definately appeals to other red states.

"and leave kerry and clinton and feingold out of this.  the subject of this thread is bayh's chances, right?  so let's leave it at that."  

No way. First you accuse Bayh of not running a 50-state strategy, and back this up with absolutely nothing except some vague assertions of where you have seen Bayh in the newspapers. What the fuck have the rest of the candidates done to "prove" to you that they are running a 50-state strategy, and that Bayh isn't? You are selectively imposing higher standards on Bayh.

 "i have no reason to believe he would be anything other than yet another corporate appeaser."

Don't make me laugh.

"instead, i've read about him appearing at corporate fundraisers"

I assume you have at least some links.

"and you're spending so much time here trying to convince this very progressive community to back a DLC centrist?  it's really laughable.  again, not trying to be rude, but really you are barking up the wrong tree here"

I'm not the one posting these diaries. If you will actually take a look at this thread instead of just assuming stuff, I only started posting to dispell some of the distortions being bandied about by those against Bayh.

by JRyan 2005-11-03 11:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: hrm don't think so
Look, I think I see what you're getting at to some extent. Bayh's record WILL appeal to other states, but as of now it doesn't because no one knows him. I do think its a little unfair to claim that Bayh isn't advocating the 50-state strategy without giving ANY kind of proof whatsoever.

Just give it time. Clinton was not known at all in 1989, so you could have technically said then that he doesn't appeal to any other state. Or that in 1973, Carter didn't appeal to any state besides Georgia.

by JRyan 2005-11-03 11:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
i will try
thanks for understanding.  i just sincerely think it is WAY TOO EARLY for this shit.  i can't say that enough.  here we are wasting all this energy on bayh when we should be gearing up for next fall.  i hope you can understand my exasperation on that point.
by annatopia 2005-11-03 12:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
whatever dude
i'm trying to have a discussion here and all you want to do is argue.  when a thread gets to the point of where one person feels they have to go over every single sentence in order to start a fight, it becomes useless.

but one last time, i'll bite.  useless or not, we'll see.

"You just can't help yourself bringing up his name, can you? Bayh is popular because of his policies and his personality, not his name. Just because you repeat that over and over doesn't make it true. And his record definately appeals to other red states."

reading is fundamental, but comprehension is priceless.  so what if i pointed out that bayh's family has a history in indiana politics?  is that untrue?  and where did i specifically state that his name was the only reason he's popular?  oh, that's right, i didn't.  but as long as you can twist my words to attack me, i guess that's ok.
then you go on to assert that his record appeals to other red states.  i don't think you can prove that.  you can only assume or speculate.  i'm tired of people stating - as fact - that just because a pol hails from a red state, that they will have red state appeal.  where is the evidence of this?

"No way. First you accuse Bayh of not running a 50-state strategy, and back this up with absolutely nothing except some vague assertions of where you have seen Bayh in the newspapers. What the fuck have the rest of the candidates done to "prove" to you that they are running a 50-state strategy, and that Bayh isn't? You are selectively imposing higher standards on Bayh."

no, i'm not.  you're just reading it that way because you're apparently determined to defend him or something.  i hold all candidate to the same high standard.  i've already spelled out my litmus test several times in this thread.  like i said, reading is fundamental but comprehension is priceless.  
as to the other candidates, i am personally of the opinion that it is WAY TOO EARLY to even be talking about 2008, and that's why it's quite stunning to me to see thread after thread of bayh crap posted all over mydd.  in case you don't realise this, we do have a midterm election to deal with first.  and on all the straw poll threads, i've made it very clear that "if these are the choices" or "given these choices", which means i am qualifying my statement.  that means that i have not settled on a pick, and i think it's way to early to even have this discussion.  at this point it's all speculation, and while we're wasting our energy speculating the GOP is organising for 2006.

""i have no reason to believe he would be anything other than yet another corporate appeaser."
Don't make me laugh.
"instead, i've read about him appearing at corporate fundraisers"
I assume you have at least some links."

the best resource for a candidate's funding is opensecrets.org.  if you will simply search for evan bayh, you will see that for each year he ran, a majority of his PAC contribution came from corporate donors.  you can find the links here, here, here, and here.  if you actually chart the trend, you'll notice that each year he raked in more and more money from corporate donors.  he also headed the pro-corporate DLC for, what was it, five years, and you can read more about his corporate connections here, here, here (he's #4 in donations from big pharma).  i could go on but why bother?

"I'm not the one posting these diaries. If you will actually take a look at this thread instead of just assuming stuff, I only started posting to dispell some of the distortions being bandied about by those against Bayh. "

did i say you were posting the diaries?  no, i didn't.  but i'd certainly lump you in with the folks who've popped up here recently in support of a bunch of moderate/centrist types.  you're welcome to defend any distortions, obviously.  i'm not saying "don't post".  i'm saying you are wasting your energy.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 11:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: whatever dude
"i'm tired of people stating - as fact - that just because a pol hails from a red state, that they will have red state appeal.  where is the evidence of this?"

I did say down below that I understand and even agree with what you are getting at there.

"and that's why it's quite stunning to me to see thread after thread of bayh crap posted all over mydd"

Thread after thread? I see two, both written by the same person. Before that, there hasn't been a Bayh thread for months.

"i could go on but why bother?"

Using corporate money doesn't make you an appeaser. Moreover, you have said that you read about him appearing at corporate fundraisers. I didn't really see that from your articles, but I DO remember the articles about him campaigning in Wisconsin and New Hampshire and Ohio and Iowa.

"did i say you were posting the diaries?"  

No, but you did say: "and you're spending so much time here trying to convince this very progressive community to back a DLC centrist?"

I'm not trying to convince anybody to back Bayh. That would be a fool's errand. I'm just trying to defend Bayh.

I understand your exasperation. That's why I don't write diaries on the subject. I plan to do all I can to support the democrats in 2006. Believe me, I'm not focused on 2008.

by JRyan 2005-11-03 12:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
yea i saw your comment
and had responded to the above one before hand.

but yea, i am GLAD to read that you are focused on 06.  i'm getting so frustrated with all this talk of 08 when we have battles to be fought in just a few months.  you see what happens with these 08 threads?  they just devolve into bullshit shouting matches, peoples feelings get hurt, people get burned, and then what have we done but wasted a bunch of time and energy that could have been expended elsewhere?

i think you get that though, which is cool.

peace.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 12:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: yea i saw your comment
Well said. That's EXACTLY what happens.
by JRyan 2005-11-03 12:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: i don't care, really
Feingold is a populist who voted against the patriot act.  While the south will be a fight, the west is far more libertarian than theological conservative.  They are PISSED at what Bush has done so far.  A Dem who doesn't condemn guns and preaches privacy will have a great shot in th West.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 08:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: i don't care, really
First of all, I didn't demean Govenor Schweitzer's victory in Montana; however, the guy who did has a great point. He only won 51% of the vote or so. Many politicans can obtain 60+% approval rating; however, many have lost with such high approval ratings. It's different in receiving 60+% of the vote than to get a 60+% approval rating.

Bayh has been a fighter to protect the Roe vs. Wade decision. He's pro-choice, but he would rather decrease the amount of abortions that take place ever single day than to fight for more abortions. He believes in choice, but he also believes in the moderation of that choice. DNC Chariman Howard Dean on Hardball said that the "Democratic Party is not the pro-choice party anymore." We are a big tent party, and it's time that radical liberals stop forcing Democrats to agree with ever single liberal agenda to be a loyal Democrat.

Bayh in New Hamsphire:
"I made a decision I thought was right at the time," Bayh said at the Henniker forum. "It turns out that some of the most important information we relied upon at that time just was not accurate. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The administration has been proven to be terribly incompetent in the way they've carried this out. It turns out that Saddam's regime was much more decrepit than we had thought to be the case at that time. So, of course, we would make different decisions based on different facts."

Also, here is another example of Bayh's innovation in Indiana:
"The education program Bayh described with evident pride assures a college scholarship to Hoosier high school graduates who aren't arrested on drug charges. Since the 21st Century Scholar program started in 1990, he said, the percentage of high school graduates who go to college has grown dramatically."

by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 10:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
*arg*
i did not say you demeaned him.  i was just adding facts to the conversation.  sheesh!

please stop repeating bayh propoganda.  he does NOT support choice because he voted to ban third trimester abortions.  he has done nothing but talk out of both sides of his mouth, just like most politicians.  voting for the "sense of the senate" crap to uphold roe, yet he votes to BAN a MEDICALLY NECCESSARY PROCEDURE THAT ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN .01% of abortions each year?  give me a break.  and don't tell me he's pro-choice but believes in "moderating" that choice.   that's just code words for someone who believes that the government has a right to dictate what we do with our own bodies.  what a load of crap.

"Bayh in New Hamsphire:
"I made a decision I thought was right at the time," Bayh said at the Henniker forum. "It turns out that some of the most important information we relied upon at that time just was not accurate. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The administration has been proven to be terribly incompetent in the way they've carried this out. It turns out that Saddam's regime was much more decrepit than we had thought to be the case at that time. So, of course, we would make different decisions based on different facts.""

Link please?  i'm glad he finally said it ONCE, but boy does that sound lame. if bayh really had changed his heart, you would think he'd be out there critiquing the administration every time he steps in front of a microphone. especially since he supposedly wants to run for president. what has he done to follow up on this statement?  has he introduced bills that would demand a withdrawal timeline?  has he stood with his party leadership to demand a full accounting of phase two (bayh wasn't there when reid shut down the senate - what's up with that?)?  has he stood with his party leadership to denounce the iraq war and demand answers from the president?  no of course he hasn't, because he's afraid of offending his corporate donors, who are making mad profits off this war.

like i said upthread, i'm glad he was good for indiana.  by all accounts he was fairly successful.  so, let him stay in indiana and continue to be successful.

oh and way to twist dean's words there buddy.  way to go.  but i'm not here to debate about dean, so i'll leave it at that.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 11:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: *arg*
Here's the website that talks about Bayh's renouncing the War in Iraq and his vote:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/13041911.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Barbara Boxer wasn't there either. Does that make her anti-Democrat? Does that make her not loyal to the Democratic Party? No. No. No. He was busy in New Hamsphire denouncing the war and demanding answers from the President of the United States.

It looks like you're the one cherrypicking and looking for any way to smear Senator Bayh. His successes in Indiana are simply proof of what he will do as President of the United States. Why should Indiana only reap the rewards of Senator/Governor/Secretary of State Bayh? Why not America?

AND DEAN THIS IS AN EXACT SCRIPT OF HARDBALL AND HOWARD DEAN:

MATTHEWS:  But the Democratic Party are a pro-choice party, period?  

DEAN:  The government...

MATTHEWS:  The Democrats, your party, is a pro-choice party?  

DEAN:  No.  My party respects everybody`s views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of people`s personal lives.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9884432/

That being said, Evan Bayh agrees with Howard Dean that women should be able to do what they want to with their body. He is pro-choice but wants to limit it unless the life of a woman is involved: very mainstream America and extremely electable.

We, Democrats, are more than just a party of abortion. We believe in safeguards and choice. We believe in cuting down on abortions, but allowing for choice. We believe in tax-cuts for middle class families and college education opportunities for American families. Issues that Mr. Bayh has so vehemently supported.

Stop the Bayh trashing. Evan has been a great American, a great leader in Indiana, and a great senator in the United States Senate. Has he called for accountability in the administration yes and that's why he voted NO on Condi Rice. That's why he voted No on Alberto Gonzales.

Let's fight for every state. Let's unte our nation and let's stop the divide that separate us and unite us with a common goal to preserve our American dreams.

Let's put the United back in the United States of America.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 11:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
christ on a pogo stick
first, thanks for posting the link.  i did a quick skim.  glad to see he said what he did.  now the question remains:  what has he done to follow up his statement?  anything?  has he said it more than once? is it something that is a core part of his platform?  has he continued, repeatedly (like his party leadership is doing), to criticise the decision?

again, stop with the straw men. i asked where bayh was, you said "well boxer wasn't there".  SFW?  we were not talking about boxer, we were talking about bayh.  look, you can either stay on topic to defend your guy or continue to throw up useless straw men.  but the more straw men you erect, the weaker your argument becomes.  i'm just sayin'.  and you should have said "he was busy in new hampshire testing the waters for his presidential run".  at least that would be an accurate statement.

speaking of distractions, you post a partial transcript supposedly proving that howard dean said (and i quote you) that the  "Democratic Party is not the pro-choice party anymore."  your transcript doesn't say that, nor did dean.  had you posted the entire exchange it would be quite clear that dean was doing his best to reframe the issue.  but what does that have to do with what we were discussing?  

" He is pro-choice but wants to limit it unless the life of a woman is involved:"  they why the fuck didn't he vote against the ban on third trimester abortions?  huh?  bayh's position was bullshit.  the ONLY TIME a third trimester abortion is performed is when the life of the mother is in danger!  and i'm sorry, you cannot be fully supportive of reproductive rights if you believe the government has a right to impose limits on your reproductive choices.  that's indefensible.  please stop trying to paint the senator as someone who fully support reproductive rights, because his voting record says otherwise.

how's this: i will stop trashing bayh when you stop trying to shove him down my throat.

by annatopia 2005-11-03 12:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
if you notice
I'm more focused on 2006 right now that I don't even know the last time I did one of these diaries other than the day that I met Senator Bayh in August.

The issue of abortion is a touchy issue and I try to stem away from that debate as much as possible.  That said, I don't force my political or religious beliefs on others.

by kydem 2005-11-03 12:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I SAY BULLSHIT
"how's this: i will stop trashing bayh when you stop trying to shove him down my throat. "

Who's shoving him down your throat? It's clear to me that you simply like reading my diaries. I'm not the one forcing you to click on my diary entries. You choose to; therefore, one could make a pretty good argument that you are shoving Bayh down your own throat.

And I did say that Bayh was in New Hamsphire denouncing the war and the president. So shut your crap up. Please, stop believing that you are superior than everyone and the only voice the represent this blog. Everyone has an opinion and I'm glad you voice yours, but don't say I am wasting my time because I'm voicing mine.

If what you said about partial birth abortions is true, than basically Bayh only voted for it with the exception that a moher's life is at risk.

S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
http://www.issues2000.org/Social/Evan_Bayh_Abortion.htm

by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 12:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
now this definitely deserves a low rating
because now you've resorted to attacking me on a personal level.  

i'm done with you for the day, truly i am. the reason i keep clicking is because like the energiser bunny you just keep going and going and going.  besides, i'm kinda having fun making the veins pop out of your forehead.

if it makes you feel better to piss and moan into the ether and make personal attacks on me, then have at it.  doesn't hurt nor bother me one bit.  but i am going to give you a lame rating since you couldn't keep it on topic and you resorted to trying to hurl insults at me.  i believe that i never insulted you personally during this debate, and that for some reason i've touched a nerve which made you go overboard.

please, go outside and take a walk.  breath the air, listen to the birds, look at the sky.  it'll do you good.  then maybe you can come back here and discuss things without gettin too personally invested.

besides, it's such a shit subject, 2008.  don't we have much more important stuff to worry about between now and then?

by annatopia 2005-11-03 12:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
I don't know if you've seen any of his latest speeches. In those, he has shown a real improvement. Even at his worst, he is still a better speaker than Kerry.

Edwards? Edwards has little experience, and hasn't shown that he can connect with voters at all. He was invisible on the stump last year. I wouldn't hold my breath. As for Clark, I was for him in 2004, but what exactly is he planning to do between now and 2008? Moreover, Bayh is a much better fundraiser than either of them, and is much more of a fresh face, since both Clark and Edwards did lose out in 2004.

by JRyan 2005-11-03 08:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
By the way, you might disagree with me, and that is your perogative. That doesn't mean its right to downgrade my comments without even replying to them, asshole.
by JRyan 2005-11-03 07:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Sorry, I sort of overreacted there, now that I think about. However, my basic point remains. If you disagree with me, explain why, but don't just troll rate and run.
by JRyan 2005-11-03 08:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Never do I troll rate and run.. even if I don't reply right on that thread.  However, rereading, I don't remember why I trolled you so I upgraded you.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 08:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Thanks.
by JRyan 2005-11-03 08:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Bayh is not pro-choice, never has been

My goodness, the Bayh-haters have begun resorting to outright falsehoods about Bayh. Please, do tell Professor Rove, I can't wait to see him in an orange jumpsuit, when you see him next, m-kay?

by blueflorida 2005-11-02 06:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
Ok That might be the stupidest comment I have EVER seen on MYDD.  Why would people who don't like Bayh be in with Rove?  Most of us don't like him because he isn't progressive enough.  Besides, I doubt the GOP is scared of Bayh.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 07:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: IU Grad, lifetime alumni member
The Senator is pro-choice.

He supported reproductive rights as Indiana's Governor.

The Senator supports Roe v. Wade.

by kydem 2005-11-02 06:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Roe v. Wade is not an albatross
Democrats seriously need a new frame on being pro-choice other than holding on to Roe, which has become an albatross around the neck of the party.

Roe v. Wade is a perfectly defensible and wise decision. It may be one of the best decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. There are plenty of ways to frame Roe besides pro-choice. For starters you don't accept the false dichotomy of pro-choice/pro-life.

Howard Dean demonstrated that on Hardball recently:

DEAN:  A woman and a family have a right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference.  That's our position.

MATTHEWS:  Why do you hesitate from the phrase pro-choice?

DEAN:  Because I think it's often misused.  If you're pro-choice, it implies you're not pro-life.  That's not true.  There are a lot of pro-life Democrats.  We respect them, but we believe the government should...

MATTHEWS:  Do you believe in abortion rights?

DEAN:  I believe that the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women.  They should stay out of our lives.  That's what I believe.

MATTHEWS:  I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is a pro-choice position.

Being a good Reich Wingnut media hack, Tweety kept trying to attach the "pro-choice" label. The Democratic Party is pro-life and pro-family. Republicans hate women, children and families. The Republican Party is pro-blastocyte, anti-abortion, anti-woman and anti-family.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-11-03 01:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Roe v. Wade is not an albatross
In case anyone forgot, I just want to point out that Chris Matthews did work for Jimmy Carter.  Brian Williams interned in the Carter administration as well--if I recall correctly.
by kydem 2005-11-03 01:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Roe v. Wade is not an albatross
I actually kind of like Chris Matthews, but has been coming off a little more conservative than usually lately.
by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 01:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bayh Achievements:
As Governor:
  1. LARGEST SURPLUS IN STATE HISTORY.
  2. LARGEST TAX CUTS FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
  3. HELP CREATE THOUSANDS OF NEW JOBS: 350,000
  4. TOUGHER LAWS ON CRIME
  5. IMPROVED ENVIRONMENT QUALITY
  6. FREE LUNCH FOR ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
  7. 80% APPROVAL RATING

As Senator:
  1. VOTED AGANIST SOS RICE
  2. VOTED AGANIST AG GONZALES
  3. VOTED AGANIST JOHN ROBERTS
  4. VOTED NO ON THE BAN FOR MILITARY ABORTIONS
  5. VOTED NO ON DISALLOWING OVERSEA MILITARY ABORTIONS
  6. PRO-STEM CELL RESEARCH
  7. VOTED NO ON CONFIRMING SEC. OF INTERIOR NORTON
  8. 74% APPROVAL BY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
  9. VOTED NO ON ANWR
  10. VOTED FOR FUNDING HYDROGEN-POWERED CARS
  11. VOTED TO FORCE BACKGROUND CHECKS BEFORE SELLING A GUN
  12. VOTED TO ALLOW IMPORTING DRUGS FROM CANADA

BAYH HAS A GREAT RECORD AS A DEMOCRAT AND I AM SAD THAT SELECTED INDIVIDUALS ARE CHOOSING TO BE DEMEAN MR. BAYH'S SUCCESSES AS A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR AND SENATOR.

BAYH IS A GREAT DEMOCRAT AND A GREAT CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 07:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Sen. Bayh's Record is Not So Great
"DLCers like Senators John Breaux and Evan Bayh, who both pocket thousands from the pharmaceutical industry, have vehemently opposed bipartisan legislation allowing Americans to import lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from Canada. But polls consistently show overwhelming support for the proposal."

Evan Bayh sided with the giant pharmaceutical compainies over the interests of seniors, consumer, and working families.

http://www.indianaprogressives.com/?q=node/view/67

Evan Bayh was one of only three Democratic Senators (well, actually two if you exclude Zell Miller) who initially voted FOR the fiscally irresponsible 2003 Bush tax cuts.

"Bayh's vote for tax cut vexes Dems
By Geoff Earle

Several Senate Democrats voiced surprise and disappointment Tuesday at Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-Ind.) decision to vote for President Bush's tax cut proposal.

Some of them have also questioned Bayh's political reasoning, noting that he holds a relatively safe seat in a Republican leaning state.

"I don't think any of us expected Bayh's vote," said one Democratic senator who declines to be quoted by name.

With Bayh's help, the tax cut cleared the Senate last week by a slim 51-49 majority."

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052103/bayh.aspx

More on Bayh:

Saying he supported privatization of Social Security.

Vocally supporting "free" trade that has resulted in the outsourcing of American jobs.

Voting for the unconstituional ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortions that DID NOT include an exception for the health of the mother.

Voting for the bankruptcy bill...twice.

Voting for expanding the death penalty and spending more on prisons.

Voting for Bush's energy policy.

Voting to eliminate CAFE standards.

Voting against trade sanctions against China for selling WMD.

by whodat527 2005-11-02 07:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Senator Bayh's Fight for America and his Record
["DLCers like Senators John Breaux and Evan Bayh, who both pocket thousands from the pharmaceutical industry, have vehemently opposed bipartisan legislation allowing Americans to import lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from Canada. But polls consistently show overwhelming support for the proposal."
Evan Bayh sided with the giant pharmaceutical compainies over the interests of seniors, consumer, and working families.]

Bill S.812 ; vote number 2002-201 on Jul 31, 2002: BAYH VOTED YES TO ALLOW IMPORTATION OF DRUGS FOR CANADA SO STOP THAT NONSENSE. CHECK THE VOTE ON THE SENATE WEBSITE AND CHECK WHAT IT DID.

Bill S1052 ; vote number 2001-220 on Jun 29, 2001: BAYH VOTED YES TO ALLOW PATIENTS TO SUE HMOs

GOT A 75% FROM APHA SO STOP SMEARING BAYH'S RECORD. HE DOES SUPPORT THE IMPORTATION OF DRUGS FROM CANADA.

"Bayh's vote for tax cut vexes Dems"

Bill HR.2 ; vote number 2003-196 on May 23, 2003: VOTED NO ON 350 BILLION DOLLAR TAX CUT OVER 11 YEARS

Bill HR 1836 ; vote number 2001-165 on May 23, 2001: VOTED NO ON 1.35 TRILLION TAX CUT OVER 11 YEARS

VOTED NO ON ELIMINATING MARRIAGE PENALTY AND PHASING OUT THE ESTATE TAX.

"Saying he supported privatization of Social Security"

RATED 90% BY THE ALLIANCE OF RETIRED AMERICANS.

ON CNN'S INSIDE POLITICS FEB. 2005:

WOODRUFF: Senator, let me ask you a question about Social Security. The Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan testifying just this week on Capitol Hill, saying he approves of the president's proposal to have private investment accounts as long as those are phased in. You're on the Special Committee on Aging. Is that the right solution?

BAYH: Judy, I don't favor private accounts as a replacement for Social Security.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 07:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
do you really
want to brag about the fact that evan bayh voted against making taxation fair for married couples?

the elimination of the marriage penalty was pushed by the democrats into the GOP tax cut plan. it is a good idea which gave married couples tax deduction equity.  yet you want to brag about how bayh voted against that?

by annatopia 2005-11-03 10:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: do you really
DUDE!!!!

IF YOU READ IT, IT SAID HE VOTED NO ON ELIMINATING THE MARRIAGE PENALTY AND THE ESTATE TAX. NO. HE WANTED TO KEEP THOSE TAXES. YES. I WANT TO BRAG. RICH PEOPLE SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES TO THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. IT'S ONLY RIGHT.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 11:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: do you really
He didn't vote for the elimination of the marriage penalty because he voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. A vote to expand the standard deduction and 15% income tax bracket for couples. The elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax would be offset by reducing the marginal tax rate reductions for the top two rate bracket.

Here's what the potential Democratic candidates voted on the total elimination of the marriage penalty:

Feingold: NAY
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&sessio n=2&vote=00215

by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 11:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
DOH!
i stand corrected on that point.  it's difficult to read ALL CAPS.
by annatopia 2005-11-03 11:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: do you really
Um, The marriage Penalty screws anyone who is married, rich or poor.  It should be gone.  The estate Tax should be in law mainly because WHY should Paris Hilton not pay taxes on her trust when all she has attributed to society is a bad tv show, a porno tape and servicing many other rich males.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 08:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Sen. Bayh's Record is Not So Great
Bayh believes in quality and affordable healthcare.

Co-sponsor of the Patients Bill of rights.

He supports free and fair trade.  he voted against CAFTA and was Gov when NAFTA was passed.

by kydem 2005-11-02 08:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Sen. Bayh's Record is Not So Great
First of all, linking to David Sirota screeds undermines your credibility.

Two, Bayh has always supported reimportation legislation. He's only voted against crappy, GOP-proposed reimportation bills that would do more harm than good.

Bayh voted against the final version of the '03 tax cut legislation - i.e. the only version of the bill that counts. He strongly opposed the '01 tax cuts, and has stated repeatedly that he would oppose any future tax cuts.

Bayh does not support Social Security privatization.

There are more manufacturing jobs in Indiana per capita than in any other state in the union. Bayh is one of the few Senators willing to buck the free trade establishment by calling for steel tariffs.

Bayh unilaterally legalized collective bargaining in Indiana as Governor.

Yes, Bayh supports the death penalty and generally takes a hardline on crime. He's not ashamed of that. Look up "Gary, Indiana" or "East Chicago" and you'll see why.

There is no more outspoken oppponent of the Bush approach to energy policy than Bayh. He's been hammering Bush on energy issues for the last five years. His voting for a bill that would fund, at least partially, alternative energy source research does not make him a supporter of Bush's energy policy. It makes him practical and not willing to think that political grandstanding by voting against even partial funding actually has any value whatsoever.

That China thing is such junk. You probably think that Clinton gave away nuclear secrets to the ChiComs for campaign contributions, don't you?

by blueflorida 2005-11-02 08:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Sen. Bayh's Record is Not So Great
"Bayh has always supported reimportation legislation."

Whether you like or dislike David Sirota, Evan Bayh was one of only two Democratic Senators to vote against bipartisan drug reimportation legislation in 2000. It's inaccurate to say that he has always supported this.

"Bayh voted against the final version of the "03 tax cut legislation - i.e. the only version of the bill that counts."

Senator Bayh did vote against final passage of the 2003 tax cuts.  But why did Senator Bayh initially vote for the 2003 Bush tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest Americans.  According to the Citizens for Tax Justice:

"Three-fifths of Bush's [2003] proposed tax reductions for this year would go to the best-off 10 percent of all taxpayers."

"By the end of the decade, more than half of the President's proposed new tax
reductions would go to the top one percent."

Their assessment of the tax cut occurred on January 8, 2003 - well before the House-Senate conference made changes to the bill.  

Why did Senator Bayh vote for tax cuts for millionaires at a time when we have the largest deficits in our country's history?  I disagree with your assertion that the final vote was the only vote that mattered  If Bayh had voted "no," we may have been able to convince another Democrat to switch from "yes" to "no."  Although it probably was a long shot,  Bush's 2003 tax cut proposal possibly could have been stopped dead in its track in the Senate.  

"Yes, Bayh supports the death penalty and generally takes a hardline on crime."

The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.  I support life without parole for the most heinous crimes.  There are so many flaws with the death penalty - including the racial disparities in death sentencing - that I won't go into right now. I think I share the view of the majority here at myDD.

"Bayh does not support Social Security privatization."

Take a look at the 1998 Congressional National Political Awareness Test at Project Vote Smart.

X  a) Allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax in private accounts which they manage.

Evan Bayh put an "X" next to that statement, indicating that he supports that view. Diverting money from the payroll tax to "private accounts" is also known as privatization of Social Security.  This is exactly what George W. Bush was proposing to the American people.

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?old=true&can_id=CNIP9107&npatform_id=63

by whodat527 2005-11-02 09:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Sen. Bayh's Record is Not So Great
You ever been to either place.  Yes, Not great (although East Chicago is better since the Casino growth) but not as bad as a lot of inner urban areas.  Much rather go to Gary than Detroit.  Just stay out of the bad gang areas.  The worst thing about Gary is the traffic and the NEVER ENDING CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 10 YEARS!!!
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-03 08:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nonesense.
IT IS CLEAR TO ME AND PROBABLY MANY THAT ARE READING THIS THAT YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO DIG UP ANYTHING YOU COULD FIND ABOUT BAYH'S CONTRADICTIONS WITH THE DEMOCRATIC STANCES;
However, why do you have to look as far as 1998. I did not visit the page, but I do know and found a quote from Evan Bayh on February 15, 2005 when asked by Judy Woodroff if he supported the privatization of Social Security, he said he did not.

ON CNN'S INSIDE POLITICS FEB. 2005:

WOODRUFF: Senator, let me ask you a question about Social Security. The Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan testifying just this week on Capitol Hill, saying he approves of the president's proposal to have private investment accounts as long as those are phased in. You're on the Special Committee on Aging. Is that the right solution?

BAYH: Judy, I don't favor private accounts as a replacement for Social Security.

I do not know how much more black and white it has to get for you. Do you favor it? No. That's his answer on February 2005, dude. So stop trying to smear his stances.

He voted aganist the Bush Tax Cuts that did all those awful things you describe no matter what you say. Here is a website that hightlights each vote he took on the final passage of the tax cuts. I don't have to search for radical writers to back my point:
http://www.issues2000.org/Economic/Evan_Bayh_Tax_Reform.htm

"The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.  I support life without parole for the most heinous crimes.  There are so many flaws with the death penalty - including the racial disparities in death sentencing - that I won't go into right now. I think I share the view of the majority here at myDD."

Many people would agree with your view; however, there are many great presidents and presidential candidates that has disagreed with our view. For example, Bill Clinton supports the death penalty and Al Gore also. Presidential hopeful Mark Warner supports using the death penalty.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-02 09:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nonesense.
I have no problem with Evan Bayh..but I would prefer a Warner/Bayh ticket in that order. Would you like that also?
by dantata 2005-11-03 09:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Problem with WArner/Bayh
The only problem with Warner/Bayh is Evan BAYH has MUCH MORE Experience than Warner for President.

Evan Bayh is the ONLY Democrat among all who plan to run who has BOTH EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE Background. ( with strong Foreign Policy, Armed Intelligence & Banking/Finance background)

TWO TERM GOVERNOR, TWO TERM SENATOR -

That's Hard to Beat!!!

Add the fact of Record level Approval rating in a very RED STATE.

These credentials whether you like him or not is VERY IMPRESSIVE! He is without Highly Qualified to run for President & even become President.

by labanman 2005-11-03 01:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bayh
No thank you.  He very well could win, but "win" what?  He's DLC to the core, and would make Hillary Clinton look like a populist.  Winning isn't everything if you sacrifice you principles.  We did a version of that in the 90s, and look where it got us.  If Bayh is the nominee, I will vote third-party.
by Paleo 2005-11-03 03:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Bayh
You could very well ask Indianans what they "won" in 1988. They won a balanced budget, tax cuts and a 1.6 billion budget surplus. They won the creation of 350,000 new jobs, and they won the 21st century scholars program, which brought Indiana's education system from 40th in the country to 9th. Bayh didn't sacrifice his principles to help Indianans, so why do you continue to go on with the whole "Winning isn't everything if you sacrifice you principles"? Bayh would make a terrific president. Vote for whoever you want in the primary, but don't distort Bayh like you are doing here. By voting 3rd party in the general, you will also be abandoning all the poor who suffered under Bush. I hope your "principles" are worth that.
by JRyan 2005-11-03 04:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I think electorally
The problem that all you Bayh/Warner/etc people face is that you are going after the same real estate as Hillary Clinton. Your candidate of choice must come across as the anti Hillary, and right now, you aren't doing it. To win the nom you have to be considered the viable alt to the Hillary juggernaut. She's raised what- a 60 million warchest. And you think you are going to win against her with that kind of war chest and not differing yourself on issues to develop a coherent I am the other better choice argument? Also, I think the problem you face is that any move to the left will be seen a  cynical, and any more to the right by 2008 will be considered the equivalent of putting a lead weight around your neck. I would say any attempt to be a different kind of moderate- but I think most of these choices are more about a different kindfo triangulation. To me Wesley Clark is a different kind of moderate in that when I hear him talk I listen.  I don't know if he is ready for the Presidency but he could have sucess as the anti Hlllary candidate. For your choices- I just don't see it, but maybe you will do something surprising.
by bruh21 2005-11-03 10:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I think it will be 3 until the end
I predict a 3 person race. With HRC obviously being one of them. I think Wesley Clark will be the 2nd person. While Bayh & Warner will go to War over the Moderate Democratic voters. Only one of them will make it to the finals against HRC & Clark.
by labanman 2005-11-03 02:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I think it will be 3 until the end
I dont understand how that's possible. Right now Bayh, Warner and HRC (and Biden) are all going after the same centrist DLC angle- so why would Bayh or Warner survive unless they go after a different voter who will allow them to survive the early primaries? My view is that Hillary will dominate that segment of the voting Democratic primary population because she has the money, the name id, the organization, the support, and, frankly, that portion of the voting electorate is about the safe choice, rather than the dynamic one. Again, I am distinquishing between moderate and centrist. My views are based on the idea of voter comparing that to candidate intertia, and which way it seems they are moving. The later (centrist) seems to me to be about triangulation whereas the former (moderate) can and does does ignore the impulse (which is why I say Wesley Clark is right now the only one occupying the moderate left (and maybe Edwards if he learned any lessons from Kerry's mistakes of 2004), not centrist triangulation space.). So- how are these others doing anything that will make them more viable as the alternative to HRC? I am not seeing anything here that suggest that.
by bruh21 2005-11-03 04:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I think it will be 3 until the end
See the way I look at this is HRC will obviously be the person to beat. Name recognition, lots of money & Bill Clinton as her sidekick.
Her support will come from a mix of Women, Liberals, African-Americans,Clintonistas & the Northeast.

I see Wes Clark as the acceptable & consensus candidate of the  Progressive base with some support from moderate democrats who like the military angle.

Without a doubt, Clark seems like the favorite to be the Alternative candidate to Hillary.

But I think there is room for a 3 way fight.

Geographically, I see the large Southern Democratic contingent,the Southwest & Midwestern democrats  as the anti-hillary faction.

A Mark Warner or Evan Bayh can easily attract & pick off states in these regions. Both of them will be attractive to both Southerners & Midwest primary voters.

I see them fighting over the SAME people. I think only one will survive. Thus, the third Force who will take on the Clark & HRC.

But if I had to bet the farm, HRC will be very hard to beat in the primary. Especially once the " History in the Making-First Woman President" is HYPED using Millions of campaign dollars.

I already see Democratic Women voters of all colors- Black, White & Brown, from New England to Arkanas, California to New York-millions of them joining the exciting crusade to elect the First Woman President of the U.S.

Even a  realistic block of 10%-15% bump in support among women voters for HRC in each state will translate to Wins for her across the country.
Enough Women voters may decide close races in many states & tip it to Hillary.

What's  my conclusion, HRC will be hard to beat no matter what. What happens in the General is a whole other story.

by labanman 2005-11-03 06:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I think it will be 3 until the end
Is it me or do the Democrats have a potential strong field next presidential election? I'll just list some people.

Hillary Clinton (First Lady and 2 Term Senator)
Bill Richardson (US UN Amb, Energy Sec, Govenor)
Wesley Clark (NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER)
Evan Bayh (2 Term Govenor and 2 Term Senator)
Joe Biden** (Ranking Member on Foreign Relations)
Mark Warner (Govenor of Virginia)
John Edwards (Senator of North Carolina)
John Kerry (Decorated War Veteran and Senator)
Tom Vilsack (2 Term Gov of 1st in Nation Caucus)
Tom Daschle (former Senate Majority Leader and former Senator of South Dakota)

No matter whoever win out of these candidates--I cannot see myself voting aganist any of the candidates above.

**Only one to announce his intentions to run.

by LA Democrat 2005-11-03 06:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I think it will be 3 until the end
God Help us if Biden wins the Nom.
by yitbos96bb 2005-11-04 08:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I think Hillary will end up being nominated but...
have a less than desirable chance at winning the election. Even though I believe we actually won the last election based on everything I've read about fraud in Ohio (BTW, I think we also won New Mexico), I think our choice of a Northeasterner to which the term 'liberal' could easily be stuck with was not our best strategy. Personally, I think Kerry would have made a fine pres but he just didn't have mass appeal. But with all the voter fraud I suspect, I might have been surprised by the REAL final vote tally.

IMHO, if we can simply find a decent Democrat (preferably from a red state) whose first name is Wilbur or Bubba, we'll be unstoppable in 2008.

I think if we go with Hillary, we'll be in the same boat as we were with Kerry. She'll be branded with so many negative "titles" that we can probably give up on every red state right from the get-go.

by desertjedi 2005-11-03 01:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One thing Bayh has that others don't
I am not a Bayh supporter. However, I have to say that Evan Bayh has the Strongest & Most Impressive Resume among the current crop of Democratic candidates.

The ONLY Democratic Candidate with BOTH Executive & Legislative experience.

The ONLY Democrat running who has been elected TWICE as Governor is a RED state & elected TWICE as Senator in a Red state. ( with record number of support from even Republicans & Independents as well)
One term as Sec. of State, Strong hands-on experience in Foreign Policy, Armed Intelligence, and Banking.

Record level Approval rating of any Democrat in a the very red state of Indiana.

Some of you may not agree with moderate views. but hands down- this dude has an impressive resume.

He can definitely go toe to toe with any Republican out there

by labanman 2005-11-03 01:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One thing Bayh has that others don't
Bayh's resume is somewhat impressive. If not for his support of the Iraq war and his in-your-face "centrism", him being the Veep for Feingold wouldn't be a bad idea at all.
by KainIIIC 2005-11-03 03:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
How about people realizing that our best chance is
Mark Warner, he can and will take Indiana, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, West Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Kentucky, Tennesee and Louisiana in addition to Kerry's 2004 states. However Bill Moyers would do even better than that too bad he is too old.  
by strrbr 2005-11-03 06:14PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------