December 5, 2006

Evan '08 Bayh

I'm trying my best to have an open mind about all the Democratic candidates for President, but Senator Evan '08 Bayh should not be fighting with Senator Joe '08 Biden over who is the most ridiculous of the '08 Democrats.
Evan Bayh:
White House hopeful Sen. Evan Bayh warned on Monday that Democrats could lose their newfound grip on Congress if the party pursues an ideological course.
"Ideological"? You mean, like governing based on core Democratic principles?

I know Bayh doesn't have any of those. But perhaps he could wait until Democrats propose something "extreme" before he says idiotic shit like this?

The punchline is that Bayh thinks he'll be a serious candidate for president. He refused to send some of his big warchest to the DSCC when we pushed the "Use it or lose it" strategy, denying the national party money when locked in its fierce battle for control of the Senate. Now, after betraying the party pre-election, he wants to lecture it post-election? I don't know why anyone would want to be the Joe Lieberman of 2008, but I guess Bayh wants the title. It's his. Congrats to him.
Running a Presidential campaign as a red state Democrat who is willing to discredit this own party only to promote himself is not a good move. Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana should actually wait in till this fellow democrats actually propose 'ideological' legislation he disagree with before the starts moving to the 'center' in this pursuit of the Presidency. Any Democrat who follows the lead of Joe Lieberman in undercutting the Democratic Party and reinforces GOP talking points should not be taken seriously as a candidate for President.


At December 05, 2006 1:36 PM, Blogger The Ripper said...

Great post, thank you. I've written about a possible Bloomberg '08 candidacy on my blog at I think with his money and smarts--along with the country's yearning for another alternative to the two party system, it might just work for him.

At December 05, 2006 2:50 PM, Blogger Eloy said...

Thanks for the comment , but I think you are completely wrong about Bloomberg '08 candidacy. Yes, Michael Bloomberg was smart enough leaving the Democratic Party and running as a Republican under the coattails Rudy Giuliani after 9/11 for NYC mayor. Yes, he definitely will have enough money to make a run for the Presidency. But, those two things does not make him the supposed savior of the country which rid us from the evils of the two party system.

Michael Bloomberg is a corporate centrists who fully supported the failed foreign policy of President Bush, which is not very unique. Basically, if Bloomberg run he will follow Joe Lieberman lead and runs as a independent DLC Democrat who preaches againist evil partisan on the left and right while continuing support neoconservatives foreign policy and Big Business.

The country is not yearning for more the same, Michael Bloomberg is no alternative.

At December 05, 2006 4:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you're dead wrong about Bayh. As a registered Democrat, I'm worried as hell about the ideological left and the way they might actually screw up their best shot at the white house since 96. If the democrats elect Hillary, they will lose. If they elect Obama, they will lose. If they elect Bayh, they just might win. But then again, this is the party that put up Al Gore and John Kerry, so I'm not optimistic about their ability to make a sensible choice.

At December 05, 2006 5:16 PM, Blogger Eloy said...

Hello Anonymous

Thanks for the comment , but I think you are completely wrong. The last time I checked Al Gore received more votes that George Bush in 2000 and would have won the election if the Supreme Court did not stop the vote counting. If John Kerry would have picked up few thousands more votes in Ohio he would be our President right now. The Democratic Party has to hold the states Kerry won in 2004 and pick up Ohio and they win the White House. Ohio is just elected Democrat to the State House and sent one of the most liberal members of the House to the Senate. Contrary to what you think, an ideological left Democrat can win the White Houses.

What makes Senator Bayh more sensible over Al Gore, John Kerry or any other Democrat running for President?

At December 05, 2006 6:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tried posting once but doesn't seem to have gone through, so apologies if this is a repeat...!

To answer your question, I think there's no doubt Bayh would be a better choice in '08 than Gore or Kerry, both of whom are pretty lw on likeability polls these days. I think most people view both of them as "has beens" that don't stand a prayer. Gore still wouldn't win his home state. So, if the Democrats want to be a bunch of Lemmings, they should nominate Gore or Kerry, but I think the party actually wants to win the White House.

Bayh has a proven track record of winning independents and republicans over to his side. He's got the executive experience, the defense and intelligence experience, and frankly, the Midwestern popularity to win the general election against the very likeable Republican candidates McCain and Giuliani. Neither Clinton nor Obama would stand a chance against either of those two. Clinton is just way too devisive and Obama, while pleasnt to listen to, has yet to do anything policy wise that would make me seriously consider him for the world's most powerful office.

Also, it's not the popular vote that counts, as we've seen, it's the electoral college. Clinton would only get traditional blue states- new england and the west coast. She might get Illinois, but nothing else. Obama would get the traditional ones, and part of the midwest- Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, probably Michigan. But that's probably it. He'd get clobbered in the south.

Bayh, on the other hand, would get all the traditional Blue states, plus carry most of the Midwest, if not all of it. He'd definitely get Indiana- the only Democrat capabale of that- and would almost certainly bring Ohio with him and maybe even Kentucky. Michigan,. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas ,and probably Nebraska as well. He's just something to him the Midwesterners like.

Bottom line: If the Democrats want to win, I think Bayh's got the best shot.

At December 05, 2006 7:47 PM, Blogger Eloy said...

Hello Anonymous

Well, Thanks again for your comments. I would love to see Al Gore make an other run for the White House. Yes, you are right Al Gore won't win this home state if he runs again but he does not have to carry any southern states to win the Presidency. In this post, I made it clear if Al Gore or any other Democrat including your pick Senator Bayh only have to hold on to the blue states and win Ohio, they win the White House. Al Gore, John Kerry both carried Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and the Democratic nominee in '08 won't have any troubles on keeping those blue states in the Democratic side.

Your suggestions about Senator Bayh being the Democratic Party only hope is false. In 2006, the Democratic Party carried the independent vote by a large margin with out having Senator Bayh on top of the ticket. A motivate Democratic base along with independents sick of the Republican Bush years will carry Democrats to victory. Senator Bayh with this DLC rhetoric does not motivate the Democratic base and will not win the nomination if he continues to undercutting the Democratic Party and reinforces GOP talking points. I'm sure my views will fall on deaf ears and you will continue believe the Conservatives stereotypes of liberals.

At December 05, 2006 8:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, you're not falling on deaf ears, I just don't agree. I think Al Gore would be a disaster for the Democratic party. I voted for the man in 2000, but I would never vote for him this time around, and I think most people feel the same. I just don't think people really have a good opinion of the man, and that's why he couldn't win an election that should have been easy for him in 2000. He's just not a likeable guy that people feel they can trust. And, he's also become pretty divisive now. Besides, he's kind of become a one-trick pony with the whole global warming thing.

I believe that the American people are tired of dividive politics and the next election they are going to gravitate to the center and elect the person that appeals to the broadest base, not to the fringes. McCain and Giuliani both have that potential for the base. If Democrats put up a liberal- self-proclaimed or perceived, they will lose to the cnterist the Republicans put up. IF the Democrats put up a centrist as well, they stand a good chance of winning. After the far-right politics of teh curretn administration, the American people don't want to compensate by going far left- they'll want to compensate by finding the middle. The New York times may tell you different, but they are also the ones that predicted Howard Dean would win in 2004.

At December 05, 2006 8:38 PM, Blogger Eloy said...

Hello Anonymous

The New York times may tell that McCain and Giuliani they a centrist, but they are also the ones that predicted Howard Dean would win in 2004.

The Republican Senator from Arizona is a man of the right, he is a Conservative. If you doubt me, ask Republican Senator from Mississippi Trent Lott who is supporting McCain Presidential run or George Wallace, Jr.

If you are a supporter of John McCain in a misguided attempt to be a "centrist" then, I'm sorry to say that you need to find an other champion. John McCain will promote the repealing of Roe v Wade and would support putting doctors in jail for performing abortions, which are extremist position. McCain is now positioning himself as Bush's heir in courting likes of Jerry Falwell.

Al Gore is not likeable guy?

Maybe, but likable George W. Bush and this Republican Party has lead this country down a dark path. So, please stop buying into Conservatives stereotypes of liberals not being likable or truthworthy.

Yes, I agree with you the American people are tired of dividive politics. But, electing McCain and Giuliani will only continue the failed foreign, economic policies of the Bush years.

let's agree to disagree for now and continue the debate on other issues.


At December 05, 2006 10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, but let me just clarify: I'm not supporting McCain or Giulinani, I'm simply pointing out that they are viewed as centrists, and that opinion probably won't change. (Giulianai is very centrist being pro-gay, pro-choice, etc.). All I'm saying is that the American people will not vote for a liberal if given the choice between a centrist and a liberal. Just as they would not vote for a ocnservative if given the choice between a conservative and a centrist. The centrist will always win over the fringe. That's always been the case. In instances where two fringes have been nominated, usually the ocnservative wins over the liberal. So, I think the best chance the democrats have is to elect someone viewed as a centrist. In this case, Bayh is the best choice because he is viewed as a centrist (even though on the issues he actualyl is very much a liberal!) That's why I support Bayh- because I want the democrats to win, and none of the otehr candudtaes stand a chance against a centrist republican.

At December 06, 2006 9:34 AM, Blogger Eloy said...

Hello Anonymous

Ok. Let's just give up all of our Democratic principles and run McCain the conservative and Giulinani the centrist as our ticket just because they are viewed by the media as suppose centrist in the ultimate pursuit of winning and liberals are un-American, crazy socialist. It does not matter if McCain solution for the Iraq war is sending more Troops is not a centrist position but, rather it's the extreme far right position. It does not matter of McCain and Giulinani were completely wrong about the Iraq war. Hey, they are centrist and only centrist can win!


Let's be real about it, the Republican Party is going to run a hard right conservative. McCain, Romney or whoever at the end of the day it's going to be a conservative no matter what the media tells you. Given the choice between a real conservative versus conservative light candidate they people are going to choice the conservative.

Why not give the American people a real choice between a Democrat who holds Democratic principles versus conservative Republican rather then give the people a choice between two shades of red.

At December 06, 2006 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact is, the American system is built on centrism. As a democracy, that's how it's supposed to work. You can't just alienate one side because we all have to live together. And right now, after 12 years of one side alienating the other, the American people are going to be looking for someone who is a centrist.

First, let's be clear: Bayh is not a conservative. He is what I like to call a responsible liberal. If you look at his voting record, he is very socially progressive but he believes in balanced budgets. That's responsible. That makes sense to most people. So to call Bayh conservative light" is false. And to say Americans will pick a hardcore conservative over him is just plain wrong. Americans do not like to elect the fringe, they like to elect the centrist. Throughout history that has been the case.

So, the fact that Bayh has a perception of being more conservative is good- it means many republicans will feel comfortable voting for him. But in realty, he is a true blue democrat. The democrats should be smart and put someone up that has that cross over appeal. It's what Bill Clinton did in 92, as you may recall, he ran on very conservative principals, and in fact, he even said "I expect to be voting for Evan Bayh for President one day."

Gore, Kerry, Hillary- they are all perceived as being on the fringes of the left. And, they pretty much are. Most Americans will vote for who seems to be the most centrist. If you put Gore and McCain next to each other, McCain looks the most centrist and Gore looks like a fringe candidate. If you put McCain and Bayh next to each other, Bayh looks like the centrist and McCain looks like the fringe candidate.

So, bottom line: If the Democrats want to win the white house they mneed to put a) someone in who is a progressive (Bayh's voting record proves he is) and b) someone who is perceived by the public as being a centrist (again Bayh has proven that he is). Anyone else will not win, unless the Republicans nominate Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell. Then the Democrats can put just about anybody in there.

At December 06, 2006 11:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bayh's Record (just to clear up the whole "conservative" misnomer):

-As governor of Indiana, Bayh established the 21st Century Scholars Program which helped more than 100,000 less fortunate children realize their dreams by attending college. Bayh's program moved Indiana from 40th in the nation in sending students to colege to 9th.

-Bayh increased education funding every year that he was governor.

-Bayh extended hospital stays for new mothers, expanded health care for pregnant women and new-born infants, and increased funding for health care each year.

-By requiring work and expanding day care, Indiana achieved the second biggest drop in the welfare rolls in the nation during his 8 years a sgovernor.

-He is pro-choice and voted against Justives Roberts and Alito and RECEIVED A 100% RATING FROM NARAL

-Bayh received a 92% rating from the Defenders of Wildlife and a 92% rating with thr Human Rights Campaign.

At December 06, 2006 12:22 PM, Blogger Eloy said...

Hello Anonymous

We are just different people. I rather be a feel thinker than buy into who the media and you appoints as the magical centrist of the day. Only you guys can really decide who is reasonable, sensible and where is the imaginary center is in American politics.


Finally on Evan Bayh ....

Evan Bayh certainly has the resume to run for president...But the obstacles to Bayh's potential run for president...are significant....Bayh's biggest handicap, however, is himself...After all these years it's still unclear what Evan Bayh stands for. What drives him to serve? What does he want, not just to be, but to accomplish?...The hangup for Bayh is what former President Bush called the "vision thing." It's hard for voters to be passionate about a leader who seems so dispassionate about the direction he wants to guide the nation...Bayh will remain a long shot until he develops a clear vision for America and discovers a heretofore unforeseen passion for his ideas.

... And this comes form his hometown paper.

At December 06, 2006 1:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean "Fell thinker." I'd rather be practical and vote for someone who is going to lead the nation as a whole, and not from the fringes. I think I'm in the majority there.

I think we'll start to see more of Bayh's vision come out as he gets more exposure. But one thing that has drawn me to him is his passion for bringing people together, and using civility- not partisanship- to accomplish the things that need ot be accomplished ot move the country forward. All Al Gore and Hillary Clinton do is yap about the evil Republicans. That doesn't get us anywhere. We need someone who can rise above all that and move us forward together as a nation united. That is Bayh's passion, and that is why I believe in him.

The hometown paper is certainly not a reflection of the people of the State of Indiana, though. A recnt poll shows about 60% of the state wants him to run for President. He's been elected 5 times in the state. He obviously resonates with Hoosiers. Will that translate to the rest of the country? Remains to be seen. But I can promise you this: Al Gore would lose. Huge. If we were nominated by th eDemocrats. So badly would he perform, in fact, that I would go so far as to predict if the Democrats were to nominate him, the Democratic party would be dead within 4 years. Same with Kerry. Clinton and Obama, not so much. While they'd lose the election, they at least can rally passionate people around them.

At December 06, 2006 2:34 PM, Blogger Eloy said...


Free Thinker, not feel thinker.


Post a Comment

<< Home