Evan Bayh's Presidential Campaign Has Just Begun

[LSparkle]

He's giving his first campaign speech right now on the Senate floor. Don't know how I feel about this, but it's painfully obvious this speech is not just for "local consumption."

[Solly Mack]

1. you noticed that too?

sounds like a campaign speech to me

[shance]

2. From his record, he looks like a Republican running as a Democrat.

n/t

[LSparkle]

4. Absolutely -- total centrist talk

Moreso than his usual; that's what gave it away for me. That's just what we DON'T need: an '08 primary between him and Hillary (DLC smackdown). UGH.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. What is more important?

A progressive who can talk centrist to get elected or a centrist who can pander to progressives and get stomped?

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. What's more important is kicking the DLC the fuck out of this party....

...so we can WIN an election for once.

NOT promote their fucking "chairman" to President of the United States.

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. Okay, whatever.

I don't have the energy for intra-party fighting right now. I'm more interested in kicking Republican butt while we're up. Screw Bayh, I get it.

[shance]

23. Absolutely ATC***Simply because someone calls himself a Democrat

in no way does that mean they are a Democrat.

Someone who consistently votes against Democratic principles and Democratic long held beliefs and votes time and time again like a Republican is no Democrat.

What they are is a sell out. Others might call them a whore.

One thing is for certain they are not a Democrat.

No matter how much they try to claim they are.

[woodleydem]

45. Didn't a former Head of DLC also serve two-terms as President of the

United States? While extreme liberals consider any candidate who has even a slightly alternate view on an issue a DINO, I consider extreme liberals DINO's. They abandon the party and vote Green because a candidate isn't an extreme liberal, not realizing (or accepting) that a majority of people in this country are clustered in the middle of the political spectrum. I'd rather back a Democrat who moves to the center to get elected than a "progressive" who speaks his mind but gets his ass kicked. It seems as though extreme liberals are more interested in beating Republicans on an intellectual and idealogical level rather than actually winning elections. Meanwhile, Republicans keep winning and advancing a radical agenda. I may not agree with everything the DLC promotes, but they produced a two-term President who balanced budgets, created $30 billion in new tax credits for higher education, created 22 million new jobs, and did more to close the gap between rich and poor than any President in the last 30 years. I sure hope my party doesn't get hijacked by the extreme wing like the Republicans.

[cobaindrain]

17. so you'd rather lose?

[AmericanDream]

31. Winning with Bayh, would be even worse...

At least today we can be complaining about the Republican controlled white house and congress and their conservative policies. With Bayh in power, and the same conservative policies, winning with a guy who can't bring progressive ideas back into this country's policies is worse than being the losing team. I'm sorry... but I won't be working my butt off to get a Bayh elected. It's time we send an FDR to the white house, not an ineffective centrist, which he is bound to be. Plus, we have way better candidates.. who not only are electable but will make terrific Presidents!

[saracat]

63. What would be the difference? If we elect one of them in Sheeps clothing

we might as well have a "real" republican! If they do the same things why would you want one in name only? They could do even more damage with people believing they aren't what they seem!

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. He is a fiscally conservative democrat, but he's a progressive.

Check out his bio.

http://bayh.senate.gov/about.html

[lojasmo]

9. He is NOT a progressive. Check his votes. EOM

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. Yes and no.

Evaluating someone on their congressional record can be a tricky thing. With all of the amendments, riders, deals, etc. it is extremely difficult to tell whether someone voted for or against a bill for progressive or conservative reasons. If you need evidence of that, look at how the Bush campaign spun the hell out of Kerry's senate record.

The essence of Bayh goes beyond his congressional voting record.

I am by no means suggesting he is THE candidate or even MY candidate. Just that he could be someone to watch closely...and from a variety of angles.

[lojasmo]

26. I've looked and listened. Bayh will NEVER get my vote NEVER. EOM

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. Hey whatever.

There are Dems out there that will never get my vote. Never. And they've got their own forums. *shrug*

[lojasmo]

55. Okay. Just wanted to let you know you're spereading misinfo.

Bayh is not a progressive. Populist, maybe, but not a progressive.

[AmericanDream]

32. Progressive? Sell it somewhere else! Remember bankruptcy reform?

[IndianaGreen]

34. I live in Indiana. Bayh is no progressive!

His father was a progressive and a great Senator. Where have you gone Birch Bayh? Is Evan really your biological son?

[JDPriestly]

49. What in the world is progressive about him?

Progressive for a Neanderthal maybe.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. I'd like to see a transcript.

I can't tune in right now. I have been watching him for a couple of years now. He's got executive experience and could be someone to follow closely.

[Pithy Cherub]

6. Well, barn burning Dem and memorable Bayh wasn't...

[snowbear]

8. Evan Bayh

I don't know a great deal about him myself, but if he decides to run, I'll definitely check 'em out. :headbang:

He definitely has that "wholesome, mid-westerner, family man" look to him :o ;)

[dolstein]

11. If DU'ers hate Bayh, he just might be the guy to lead the Dems to victory

Seriously folks, we nominated one of the most liberal members of the United States Senate, who hailed from the only state in which gay marriage is legal, and who was a leader of the anti-war movement. Sure, there are probably a few died-in-the-wool socialists around here pining for Dennis Kucinich, and a few Dean loyalists too. But the fact is we nominated a very liberal candidate.

I think it's time to try nominating a moderate again. Someone who can actually compete in more than one or two red states. Sure, ultraliberals won't get everything they want. But the cold, hard truth is that (a) you're never going to get everything you want and (b) we'd be a hell of a lot better off then we'd be with another four years of unified Republican control of our government.

[AntiCoup2K4]

14. Leader of the anti-war movement????

You WERE referring to Vietnam, right? He certainly was no leader, or even a follower, of the anti IRAQ war movement (aka the global war FOR terrorist tyranny)

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Because you're not likely to get support.

I'll chime in with you.

I am a bleeding heart far left practically socialist liberal. But I'd vote for Bayh. Hell, I liked what he said on the floor of the senate after 9/11. He was one of the few to stand up to the neocons in the rah rah rally that followed the terrorist attack. I remember watching him with my mouth hanging open.

No one will ever have a candidate 100% match their personal beliefs unless they run themselves. I've just learned to live with that.

[woodleydem]

47. I agree. If people are waiting around for a candidate that perfectly

matches all of their views, you will have an extremely long wait. It's amazing that Bush is in no way a traditional Republican, yet even if they vehemently disagreed with him, most Republicans voted for him anyway. As much as I hate to admit it, Repugs have much more party discipline than Democrats. I can't tell you how many times I've read posts on DU saying, "If candidate X gets the Dem nomination, I am voting Green!!!" LET'S HAVE SOME PARTY DISCIPLINE!!! No candidate will ever satisfy every view of every Democrat. But this country as a whole is much better off with even a centrist Democrat than a Republican. I don't know why that is so hard for some liberals to comprehend.

[Pacifist Patriot]

52. That is a very important point that cannot be overlooked.

Polling in my area has shown this to be true over the last two decades. Republicans vote Republican. Democrats vote Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Independent and sometimes Republican. No wonder we win so few municipal and county elections even though the number of Democrats isn't really that much lower than the number of Republicans. Independents and NPA more than make up the gap. This county has the appearance of being Red, Red, Red because of the number of offices the Republicans hold. The Democrats have got to bring it together, both the Executive Committe and the voters. And lest I get blasted, I'm a relatively new member to the DEC and we're working hard after ten years of crappy mismanagement.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Yes...but that is you assuming that Bayh would be the only

candidate that could suit us at less than 100% and be an acceptable candidate that could possibly win. There are many others....so the fact that he is far from perfect as a representative of change we would want in '08....is not selling Bayh to me, anyways.

[woodleydem]

57. The "others" that the far left liberal wing wants have no chance

at winning a national election, or even the Democratic primaries. Boxer, Feingold, Clark, Kucinich, Dean--I would be shocked if any of those individuals won a primary state, let alone a general election. The 2008 race will come down to Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Vilsack, Richardson, Bayh, Biden, and Warner, IMO. I'm not saying Bayh will or won't be the nominee, and if Clark is the nominee, I will get behind him and vote for him. But too often, liberal DINO's bail on the party and vote Green because they didn't get their first choice. The Democratic party lacks the party discipline that the Republicans have, and that lack of discipline begins in the liberal wing. I sure hope the last five years have taught us that a centrist Democrat is infinitely better for this country than a Republican.

[FrenchieCat]

60. I think that your are short changing many who, because they

wear the liberal tag proudly and are fighters. You've labeled some Liberal DINOs....which is not a label that I am aware of exists. I add that you have already come to a foregone conclusion as to what will be considered a "respectable" electable nominee, without really qualifying such.

You are into the "safe"...which later may morph into the "sorry".

"Those who take the least risk, will claim the smallest of rewards, if any."

I realize that you understand that not all candidates are created equal....yet, you have chosen only establishment candidates as potential "winners", while anyone that doesn't fit the neat pre-ordained "Mold" of career politician is out.

If you think that "centrist" is where it's at, that is your choice. But I fear that it's more of the ideal that "what you conceive, you shall achieve" that you are following.

PS: Clark did win a primary, and did it in one of the most conservative states in our Union....while coming in second in 3 southwestern states. Clark is not of any mold that you have listed....so to include him in is a dis-service to his name, IMO.

[woodleydem]

65. I haven't "chosen" any candidates. I will support whoever wins the

Democratic primaries. If it's Clark, then he will get my full support. The label of DINO is given by liberals to Democratic politicians who they perceive as not satisfying every extreme liberal ideal. I give extreme liberals the tag of DINO because they are the ones who bail on the party more than any other Democratic party faction. I don't consider myself centrist; in fact, I am probably just as liberal as many around here. But what I also realize is that a majority of people in this country consider themselves centrists or moderates, and candidates that are in the middle are likely to win more than an extreme candidate. What irritates me more than anything is the countless posts I have read on DU saying, "Candidate X will never get my vote!!" If the Democratic party is ever going to climb out of the minority and win the Presidency, it has to have much better party discipline. And the lack of discipline starts with the extreme liberal wing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Bayh definately has that special something.

It's called Joementum!

[Hippo_Tron]

35. LMAO

Agreed

[IndianaGreen]

41. Bayh won't carry Indiana

At a minimum, each member of the Democratic ticket in 2008 must be able to carry his/her state into the Democratic column.

[woodleydem]

58. I disagree. Before being elected to two terms in the Senate, Bayh served

two terms as Governor and has a solid base of constituents in his home state. Bayh was elected with over 60% of the vote this past year in a state that Bush carried handily. Maybe Bayh had a weak opponent, but if he had a weak opponent, it goes to show you how little confidence the RSCC had in beating him, even though Indiana has a solid base of Republican office holders to recruit from. Moreover, a recent Indiana poll showed a large percentage of Indiana residents were very receptive to the idea of Bayh running for President. Now I'm not saying he would definitely carry his state (a lot depends on who the Republican opponent is), but Bayh has won four statewide elections in fairly comfortable fashion and sports high approval ratings even with state Republicans. He could very win Indiana.

[thebigidea]

44. I like how you speak of DUers as if you aren't one

[FrenchieCat]

12. I have this nagging feeling that

the nom will be for Warner or Bayh.

I think that Bayh will probably be the one that will walk away with the nom. In imagery, he's got what "appeals" to many....He's of the right age, with the right wife and the right number of kids.

Although he's not at all "charismatic" in "real life"....his photos are good. Democrats won't think beyond that.

In experience, he's got what the rank & file Democrats would equate as what's required-- 2 term governor of a Red State....as well as a Senator, but since he has voted more times with Bush than against, his voting record is not as big a turn off to those Democratic powers-that-be. Plus, he's a DLC big boy! He Sits on some committees that, for the uninformed, could connotate "National Security" Experience.

He won't be an asskicker...more like an ass licker during the GE.... but Democrats won't see that far into the future.

He'll most likely walk away with it in Iowa.....and depending on who the Pugs put against him.....he could win it. However, if the GOP puts up a strong National Defense type....and our Foreign policy gets worse, than he loses.

That's how I see it, but it's not what I want....at all.

[snowbear]

20. Hey waita minute there FrenchieCat...

..."his photos are good. Democrats won't think beyond that."

That's not true.. If we went by looks alone, the General would have won big time.. ;) :P :hug:

~ LOL..

[FrenchieCat]

21. Yeah, but

He was a General!

Can't have that.....:scared:

[leyton]

16. Let the vilifying of Bayh begin.

I'm going to preempt those who are going to call Bayh a DINO...

I checked issues2000.org (though that doesn't seem to be near comprehensive) and while he's not ultra-progressive, he seems to have a decent record:

# Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
# Balance debt reduction, tax relief, & policy investment. (Jan 2001)
# Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
# Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
# Firmly opposed to Bush’s voucher proposal.
# Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.
# Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill.
# Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds.
# Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy.
# Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.
# Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions and corporations.
# Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology.
# Rated 75% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.
# Voted NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions.
# Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
# Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. (May 2001)
# Voted NO on $792B tax cuts.

Statements during 2004 campaign season regarding war in Iraq:
# Iraq-al-Qaida contacts, but no complicity or assistance. (Jul 2004)
# CIA knew State of the Union Iraq-Niger connection was false. (Jul 2004)
# Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear program. (Jul 2004)
# Iraq was not developing its biological weapons program. (Jul 2004)
# Iraq was not developing its chemical weapons program. (Jul 2004)
# Iraq was developing missiles, but not to reach the US. (Jul 2004)

I think he'd be a strong nominee based on these votes.

[zulchzulu]

24. Wow..I didn't see your post until after...

..I did the same thing as you. :->

[leyton]

25. There is a kneejerk reaction here to call Bayh a DINO.

I believed it for a long time, then I went and did the research.

[JDPriestly]

50. He sure doesn't present himself as having

these liberal stances in his bio. Maybe it appeals in Indiana, but out here in California, he's got to reach out to us real Democrats.

[leyton]

54. Well, you do have to be a centrist to win in Indiana.

Stray from that, and they will forget how many times they elected you. Look at Al Gore - he won every single county in his Senate reelection bid, yet lost the state when he ran for President.

[zulchzulu]

22. Not a bad guy..not my first choice for 08 either...but...

...he's a moderate Demlican or a Republicrat...whatever...he's a moderate. Governor and Senator...OK...A Hoosier Moderate.

Rated 74% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 50% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
Rated 33% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)
Rated 75% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 30% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-labor voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 26% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
CIA knew State of the Union Iraq-Niger connection was false. (Jul 2004)

http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm

[FrenchieCat]

28. sorry....

But he reminds me of Alfafa in "Our Gang".

[zulchzulu]

30. Alfalfa?

http://www.rivalquest.com/ourgang/alfalfa.html

Nah...



Do you know none of the Our Gang crew got a dime from their show and they all died horribly...

[FrenchieCat]

38. Oh...come on!

Come on....it's the silly grin. Cute on a kid. Looks kinda Stoopid on Bayh though...especially if he gonna sell keeping the nation safe. Plus Bayh sports the same grin on every pic I've seen.

[realFedUp]

29. very senatorial

I'd like to see what makes him mad though...

[AwakeAtLast]

33. He's very "governatorial", too (is that a word?)

I live in Indiana, and I am not the cheerleader for Evan Bayh. Having said that, I do think he could help get some solid red states to vote Dem. He has the experience of being both a governor and a senator. He is what middle America is looking for.

I said after the 2000 election that if Gore had chosen Bayh as his running mate, it would have been a landslide. That was before I realized it was stolen, before I was a solid Dem, and before DU existed. I still think that's what would have happened. <sigh> I know, water under the bridge.

Just my $.02

[demwing]

46. There's a word that's spelled: "Gubernatorial"

And it means "Of or relating to a governor."

I think you're looking for a word like "Presidential." I'm not 100% sure, but I bet Gubernatorial would work.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Evan Bayh is an empty suit

I don't give a shit that the guy is a centrist, I would vote for a centrist if I thought that he was a good leader. Name for me one original idea or one great accomplishment that this guy has had in his political career. He got elected to office on his money and his father's name.

Evan Bayh is NOT Bill Clinton by any means. I'm not voting for him because I think that he would make a bad President and because I frankly am not all that sure that he could win.

Mark Warner, on the other hand, I would actually consider voting for. From what I've read about him he's a pretty accomplished Governor and getting a tax increase through a GOP legislature in a red state is no small accomplishment.

[Clarkie1]

37. Yep there's going to be a whole lot of senators running for POTUS.

And one general.

[FrenchieCat]

39. But, but, but, ....

Unfortunately, it appears that many Dems would prefer a KiSS Ass Dem to a kiCK ass Dem.

[Clarkie1]

40. I wouldn't count on that. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

42. If Russ Feingold doesn't run, I've got the General's back for sure

That's a man who can kick some ass.

[FrenchieCat]

43. On that note....yeah,

I'll take a KiCK Ass over a KiSS Ass anyday, cause this is some serious shit! We've got to get the "big" boys on this one. Alfafa can keep on playing!

[simcha_6]

48. He sounded weird- too staged, I guess

Not a great speaker, or just a bad speech writer. Was he smarmy, by any chance? (I'm just looking for the right word to describe him.)

As for me, I was happy to see him speak, but I've decided, unless he pulls out some great ideas to help the U.S., I'll be looking for another candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

51. I wouldn't say Smarmy,

more like weak and accomodating. But of course, that's just me.

Others might seem him as tough and principled.

[Vinca]

53. I watched the oration with the same thought.

Unfortunately, the word "winner" didn't come to mind. He was about as exciting as a bowl of cold oatmeal. Not bad looking though.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

61. I agree that Hillary is "tougher".

[reality based]

64. I second the oatmeal emotion. n/t

[hippiechick]

62. note to self re Bayh:

:puke: