Bayh Discourages Dems from Making Issue of Illegal Wiretapping

[Rose Siding]

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, who plans to visit Iowa today, on Friday discouraged fellow Democrats from making the Bush administration's use of wiretapping a campaign issue.

"This should not be a political fight," Bayh, who is weighing a campaign for president in 2008, said in a telephone interview.

.....Bayh, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has repeatedly said Democrats must prove that they understand national security and can keep people safe before they can expect to return to the majority nationally.

.....Some top Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, have complained that the practice violates Americans' civil liberties.

"We have to do what it takes to protect the country," he said. "It's in the administration's best interest that we do it in a way that reassures people that J. Edgar Hoover hasn't been exhumed."

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060211/NEWS09/602110323/1001/NEWS

Bayh not only cowers before the spin of the mighty Mehlman, he promotes the myth:

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, declared Friday that Democrats who have condemned the Bush administration's controversial eavesdropping program may not be suited to safeguard Americans against terror attacks.
"We do not and we never should question these Democrat leaders' patriotism, but we do question their judgment and we do question their ability to keep the American people safe," he said. "These are people we know love their country, the question is: Can they protect it?"

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/politics/13843940.htm

[kurth]

1. Democrats must PROVE that they UNDERSTAND national security?

Fuck you, Evan.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Bayh is a chickenhawk!

Who has lived a life of privilege, and has spent most of his life living outside Indiana,

Evan is the opposite of his father, former Senator Birch Bayh, who was among the first to oppose the Vietnam war and who did not hesitate to lead the opposition to Nixon's Supreme Court nominees Carswell and Haynsworth. Birch Bayh is a giant, while his useless son Evan is a midget!

[EVDebs]

56. Bushco's lies to get us stuck in Iraq need to be examined....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=377850&mesg_id=379516

so that we can ALL know why Quakers in FL are being spied upon domestically. This IS a HUGE issue and we must not forget the Georgia vegetarians who are also being spied upon domestically. Gigantic national security threat there, LOL !, along with the Raging Grannies and CodePink ladies.

The Republicans, should these stories make it into PrimeTime MSM, would be laughed out of office.

[cantstandbush]

79. Uh, wasn't Bush President when 9/11 happened?

Didn't the Clinton administration catch, try, and sentence the folks for the first WTC bombing?

Wasn't OKC bomber caught and sentenced and executed under the Clinton administration?

Wasn't it under Reagan's watch that 250 Marines were killed in their barracks in Lebanon? Haven't 2,200+ US soldiers been killed in Iraq under the Bush administration?

Was the Bush administration able to responsibly answer the call for public safety and security during and after Katrina?

Are there churches being burned to the ground under the Bush administration?

Didn't a man hang himself on a plane under the strictest of airline security measures under Bush's watch?

How many terrorists has the Bush administration caught and tried? I mean proven terrorists.

[1democracy]

91. The biggest threat to national security is BUSH...

and his corrupt incompetent cronies.

[NYCGirl]

2. Bayh can't figure out that it's not the wiretapping we're talking about?

To Evan Bayh: It's the ILLEGAL wiretapping, stupid!

[Nomen Tuum]

61. Sadly, he's not even a pale carbon of his Dad

Birch Bayh stood up and fought, I guess Evan remembers how NCPAC kept lying about his "ultraliberal Dad" and destroyed him in 1980 and gave us Dan Quayle...

Evan, you don't win elections by being an extreme centrist and too timid to speak up. Your Dad spoke up for people who barely got by. He never backed down. Is it too much to ask you to do that just once?

[rzemanfl]

3. Fuck you Evan. n/t

[Warpy]

25. You beat me to it.

He needs to be discouraged from calling himself a Democrat. He's clearly not.

I can't believe party conservatives consider this jerk a viable contender for a presidential candidate in 2008.

[converted_democrat]

39. Ditto..n/t

[Kierkegaard]

4. Mehlman (Larry Bud?) offers specious argument.

World shocked. Film at 11...

[DarienComp]

5. Has Evan Bayh ever shown leadership on ANYTHING?

I certainly can't think of anything...

[Rose Siding]

13. Not even here- Vilsack expressed this position a week ago

They are vying for the support of the Demure and Fainting Iowans wing of the Democratic party

[IA_Seth]

140. I can assure you that wing...if real...is VERY small... n/t

[Sadie5]

22. Has Evan Bayh ever shown leadership on ANYTHING?

How to be a good Repig

[ewagner]

6. Bye-bye BAYH!

While you're endearing yourself to the few DINOs left in the party, you have alienated your BASE.....

to quote Bill Murray from Ghostbusters, "Way to go BONEHEAD!"

[LiberalFighter]

87. That is the slogan the hoosier repugs used when he won gov elections

Of course, the difference will be that Indiana does not decide all by themselves who will be President or even the nominee. And Democrats in Indiana were not saying Bye Bayh to him when he ran for Governor in 1988 & 1992.

Bayh never won an election on his own. It was the legacy of his father. And that legacy is dying off.

[Debi]

7. All hail the f%&$ing DLC...first Vilsack and then Bayh...

I wonder when Iowa became such a prissy-ass state.

Just two years ago we had presidential wannabes touring the state railing against the IWR vote and the war itself.

Now we don't want to upset the GOP, they might be mean to us....:wtf:

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Memo to DLC: drop dead. nt.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Bayh-Bye!

He should turn around, walk away, enter the Senate chambers, and just not come back!

[bullimiami]

10. get the hell out of the way and let someone with integrity and guts

take over.

[DinahMoeHum]

11. Fuck you, Bayh, AND the DLC. Bush broke the law. Period.

n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

12. Bayh can certainly be president

of the Indiana Peony Society.

President of the USA, never gonna happen in real life only in his delusional dreams..:eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

38. a heads up and a thank you

i recently completed "All the Kings Men" on your recommendation ... truly remarkable book ... what was weird was that the day after i finished the book, i watched the movie on TV (i didn't even know it was made into a movie) ...

again thanks for the tip ... here's my tip:

"All the Kings Men" will be discussed today at 3 PM (E.S.T.) on C-Span2 (repeated Sunday at 3AM (E.S.T.)) ...

here's the C-Span2 blurb:

source: http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segID=6713&schedID=402

Book TV Programs
A Weekly Look at Selected Book TV Programs
On Saturday, February 11 at 3:00 pm and Sunday, February 12 at 3:00 am
Book Club: "All the King's Men" by Robert Penn Warren

Description: Robert Penn Warren's novel "All the King's Men" was published in 1946 and won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1947. "All the King's Men" tells the story of the rise and fall of Willie Stark, whose character is based on Huey Long, Governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and U.S. Senator from 1932 to 1935. From Politics and Prose bookstore in Washington, DC, Swarthmore College political science professor Raymond Hopkins discusses the book in an event hosted by the Swarthmore College/Mt. Holyoke alumni book group.

Author Bio: Raymond Hopkins is a political science professor at Swarthmore College, where he has taught since 1967. His area of specialty is world food supply and food politics. Hopkins was a delegate to the 1996 World Food Summit, and he has authored and/or edited several books, including "The Global Political Economy of Food" and "Food in the Global Arena." Professor Hopkins has held visiting teaching posts at Stanford University, Harvard University, the University of Nairobi, and the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Publisher: HARCOURT 15 E. 26th Street New York, NY 10010

[Pithy Cherub]

75. Thank you for the heads up!

That book is a continuous wonder that resonates every single time I have picked it up. I am glad you enjoyed it, though enjoy might be not the correct description. The reason for the All the Kings Men latest release (recently found out) is that it is currently filming a new adaptation for the big screen. I believe Jude Law is the star. That ought to be interesting.

[RufusEarl]

14. Evan Bayh's an idiot,

It's not the wiretapping stupid, it's the wiretapping without a warrant. Geeez

[PBass]

46. Exactly, it's the warrantless spying that is the issue.

Wiretaps are legal when there is court oversight, with the required warrants.

Apparently Bayh is clueless about what the fuss is about ???

[glitch]

15. Bite us Bayh. nt

[mzmolly]

16. Bayh thinks Bush is tough on terror as well.

:hi:

[tularetom]

17. Dems have to prove they have the balls

to stand up to the pubs and the corporate media if they want anybody to think they "understand national security". I'd be REALLY worried if I thought this dipshit had even a slim chance of being nominated.

Standard disclaimer: (Sigh) Yes, I'd vote for him if he's the candidate.

[DemInDistress]

18. screw bayh..I don not support carte blanche spying of Americans

only those idiots who prefer to be spied upon should be..lets have a do not spy on me national list. Or spying
allowed here for the sheep..sneak and peek..listening to my calls...readin what I email..or even at DU
Its not for me..its not the america I knew. BUT
If a new investigation into 911 went forward and all the evidence was laid out ALL OF IT including sworn testimony from the bush crime family then I'd maybe allow spying until that happens..NO SPYING FOR OR ON ME OR MY FAMILY OR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS...

[gratuitous]

19. Absolutely right, Mr. Bayh; it's not a political fight

It's a constitutional fight. And which side of the constitution are you on? The side of the fascisti, who are trying their level best to strip us of our rights, or the side of the Founding Fathers, who thought individual liberties were so important that they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish and defend a country founded on those principles?

Which side are you on, Evan? Which side are you on?

[IndianaGreen]

20. This Hoosier prefers Russ Feingold to Evan Bayh

As Feingold said, "rolling over now is not the answer."

As Democrats, if we can't stand up for basic values like liberty and freedom, what do we stand for? We cannot fold in the face of fear and intimidation by the White House. (Especially if we hope to have any chance of winning future elections.) Rolling over now is not the answer.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/10/115433/566

[FrenchieCat]

21. Shouldn't Bayh be out there promoting 2006 candidates

instead of talking about himself so much?

That Self promoting Alfafa!

[acmejack]

23. He harbors illusions of running in 2008

haha

[f-bush]

24. Bayh is fulll of shit

I would rather lose the election and have the American public wake to the fact that we are living in a Nazi state than bend over for these bunch of fuckers!

[Mass]

26. So that is what he meant by saying Democrats have to be tough on defense

That is what I thought he meant too.

[LiberalAndProud]

28. Right. It's only the Constitution of the US, nothing important... IDIOT!!!

[Stuckinthebush]

29. Way to energize your base dumb ass

I'm sure that will serve you well in running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination.

Do our politicians not understand that the base is PISSED OFF at this administration and want nothing to do with playing nice? NO Bayh, you bonehead, we SHOULD make a big deal out of it because it is freakin' ILLEGAL!!!

[leesa]

30. A a good little German, er DLCer..er GOPer

[mdmc]

31. I miss J.E. Hoover

He could have brought down w. (well, maybe not.. the BFEE has him in their cross)///

[havocmom]

32. Makes me wonder what they 'overheard' Evan saying on a phone call

;)

[quiet.american]

45. Hello! I have my suspicions about that.... n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

33. LORD HAVE MERCY! How VILSACKIAN of Mr. Bayh!

Now sit back as DU's half dozen faithful DLC apologists drop in and tell us how stupid we are for being upset at this pathetic excuse for a platform.

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. Kick this all the way to the Front Page people!

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. I cannot believe that his father would be proud

[kath]

36. Screw youBayh. DLC asshole.

[Vickers]

37. "may not be suited to safeguard Americans against terror attacks"

NEWSFLASH! 9/11 happened on BUSH'S watch!

[Auntie Bush]

40. That's just WHY we need Wesley Clark for president. People can

trust him to protect our country AND our Freedoms and the Constitution at the same time. He's the only one that can do that!That's how we can beat them! We're better at protecting America than
they are. That should be our new meme. Man do we need Clark!
Get on the bandwagon folks. Are you with him? Only Wes Clark can protect America and it's Freedoms.

[mia]

51. I'm with Clark.

Watch The Real State of the Union.

[sampsonblk]

118. Amen to that

Haven't seen anyone close to Wes Clark yet.

[bluedog]

41. Bayh .Just shut up

.
good god....just how much more do we have to hear about "protecting" America?........theres only so much that can be done........republicans have "protected" us..yea........how about the port cargo.inspected every container?.NO...about the borders.......NO......

how about a little common sense....reasoning.....difficult problems can and should be handed diplomaticly........but the Republican party thinks.matters are ironed out with "guns and Bombs"

The bush republican party has brought death and ruin onto this Nation and now they are using.""see we are not afraid """defense........'we will"protect you'''.....just who "protects" us from the party of lies and corruption.......this bush republican corrupt party are liars and their followers are no better.

any Democrat who follows their chant.is no better than a bush light republican......and should be told so ...as the GOP has the media star headlines....this truth must get out..........or watch this country be destroyed..............not by terrorists..but by the bush republican party.......

[radio4progressives]

42. don'cha gotta love these vichey traitors ? one by one, every dlc doing the

Mussolini "Third Way" Tango ...

:nuke:

[OzarkDem]

43. Any Dems who can run against Bayh?

He's certainly near the top of the list to be replaced by a real Dem.

[Joanne98]

44. DINO! I hate them all!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

47. What the HELL is wrong about judicial oversight? Eh, Senator?

What the HELL is wrong with you?

[PBass]

48. Evan Bayh contact number

[phone]

He needs a clue.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Breaking news for Evan Bayh!

The issue is the President of the United States breaking the law and wiretapping Americans with out a warrant. Unless you think the Quakers pose a national security threat, you have totally missed the boat and even if you do think the Quakers pose a national security threat all Bush had to do was obey the law and get a warrant. Furthermore I do not believe the Democratic Party has vastly more veterans running for office in 2006 and more veterans in office because we are soft on security, it would seem to me the opposite is the case. In conclusion, total up the number of Americans killed by terrorists under 6 years of Bush as opposed to 8 years under Clinton and it's not even close. If you are serious about national security, then damn it do your job and protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic!

[pat_k]

50. What an idiot. . . Help wake him -- and others -- up!!

Bayh, and others like him, know that "making a big deal of the criminal wiretapping without a warrant" leads to one thing: IMPEACHMENT.

They fear going there.

We need to help them See the Light -- that what they really need to fear are the consequences of proving their weakness by FAILING to accuse the criminals of their crimes, and failing to do everything in their power to remove the criminals from power and see that they are punished.

The most serious problem Democrats face is the perception that they are weak. This perception is rooted in the reticence that anti-fascists seem to have when it comes to accusation and punishment. (Something the right clearly revels in.) Instead of going after wrong-doers, Democratic leaders seek to "make sure it doesn't happen again" (and the Republicans chuckle, "Gee, for a minute there, I though they were actually going to do something.")

Standing on principle always benefits the leader who does so. As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

If Democratic candidates take a stand and demand Impeachment, it would not be surprising to see them garner an additional 5-7% of the white male vote, simply for showing the fortitude that demographic respects.

[Fovea]

52. Well Evan

you lost my vote.

[Harper_is_Bush]

53. I think she has a point.

If the dems do that, then the constant dishonest returning refrain will be that dems aren't willing to do what it takes to defend America.

If, however, dems just answer when asked about it and instead concentrate a campaign on positive issues and solutions and let the media pursue the wiretapping story, they get the best of both worlds and aren't open to swiftboat-like attacks.

[LiberalAndProud]

57. SHE has a point?

If he wants Dems to ignore the issue, he should SHUT UP. uh... we don't want to take a POLITICAL stand 'cuz that Liberty stuff is overrated anyway.

BS!!!

[Harper_is_Bush]

58. Sorry, HE has a point. The gender is unimportant, it's the message...

Don't you think there's any logic in the reason I think there's a point to it?

[LiberalAndProud]

65. If the Democratic Party does not take a stand here...

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Where, exactly, should I expect a stand to be taken?

LOGIC??? I think NOT!!!

[Harper_is_Bush]

69. You presume that by allowing the wheels of the media and

of justice to turn without making this a Dem campaign issue that somehow a stand will not be taken on the issue.

It appears to me a stand is being taken. It's being reviewed and many are being critical of the program.

I presented some pretty good logic for now making this a Democratic campaign issue. You STILL did not address it.

[LiberalAndProud]

70. Acquiescence implies conset.

Your argument implies that there is no principal more important than pragmatism.

Like I said above, if Bayh wants to not make this a campaign issue, he should KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT.

To take a public stance that appears to take the position of "move along...nothing to see here" makes us all look like FECKLESS and NOODLE SPINED PRAGMATISTS. (Did I just describe Bayh? oops.)

Pragmatism will not win elections. PASSION will.

[Harper_is_Bush]

71. The question is if it should be a campaign issue.

Not making it one does not signal "acquiescence".

I also said that when asked, democrats will answer. And obviously they will be asked a lot as the issue appears in the media.

[LiberalAndProud]

72. Am I clear on your position here?

If the dems do that, then the constant dishonest returning refrain will be that dems aren't willing to do what it takes to defend America.

So here's my position ...

If the Dems don't do that, then the constant honest returning refrain will be that Dems aren't willing to do what it takes to defend the Constitution.

[Harper_is_Bush]

74. Well, it is a direct quote...so...I think so. Your position is not clear

to me..

who will be making such a refrain against Dems? The Republicans?

edit: quite = quote.

[LiberalAndProud]

76. Point taken. It will not be a RightWing talking point if we fail to

"make this a campaign issue".

Although a canny 3rd party candidate might be able to capitalize. And the dismantling of our Constitution will continue unchecked.

I admit, I'm not a canny politician. There are just some ideas that are bigger than politics. And the Fourth Amendment is one of them.

If the Republicans want to use the Constitution to wipe their own asses, I think the Democrats should call them on it.

[Telly Savalas]

125. But the point of all this isn't national security...

rather the White House's total disdain for the rule of law. The point the Democrats need to be hammering is that if the Republicans feel that FISA is inadequate then it should be amended, not ignored.

Sitting on their asses and letting things take care of themselves has been a dismal failure of a strategy on other issues for the Democrats. Why's it going to start working here?

[pat_k]

132. Backlash is a mythical beast the fascists invoke to frighten anyone who. .

. . .contemplates actually DOING SOMETHING EFFECITVE.

Every single time Democratic leaders consider taking effective action, the fascist noise machine kicks into gear with dire predictions of backlash. Every single time, like clockwork.

When our leaders ignore the apocalyptic warnings and act, the only people who react negatively are people who already despise everything Hannity and Rush tell them to despise (i.e., everything Dems do and don't do).

We can -- and must -- completely ignore those fascist followers. We must all stop wasting our time trying to reach them or worrying about what they might do or what names they might call us. When we pay attention to them, or take their responses (or predictions of their responses) seriously, we give them power they wouldn't otherwise have.

Being immoblized by fear of the big bad "backlash" bogeyman has devastating consequences (e.g., sitting on their hands while the Presidency was stolen). Fear of the "backlash" beast is at the root of the biggest problem Democrats face: the perception that they are weak and unprincipled.

The more our Democratic leaders "go along to get along" to avoid rousing the fabled "backlash" beast, the weaker and more complicit they appear (and are). If they don't get over their fear and act, they might as well surrender now and hand the fascists the nation on a platter.

Standing on Principle ALWAYS Benefits the Leader Who Does So

As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

Any Republican or Democratic leader who stands on principle, tells the truth and "makes a big deal" of the criminal wiretapping without warrants, would not just activate antifascists across the nation, they would pull in countless "Get 'Em! Get 'Em!" people (People -- mainly white mailes -- who revel in accusation and punishment. They usually identify as Republican or Libertarian, but they really don't care who the target is. They would join any mob out to tar and feather someone.)

When leaders face facts -- that wiretapping Americans without a warrant is a criminal abuse of power; that Bush and Cheney's disdain and abuse of our constitutional democracy extends far beyond this one crime -- demanding Impeachment is the only moral option.

[bvar22]

54. The DLC....continuing to elect Republicans....

...by repeating and perpetuating Republican Talking Points and LIES.

THIS is how any Democrat should respond EVERYTIME they hear the old talking point (Dems weak on Defense):

"Listen Here Buddy. The Democrats WON a World War in less time than the Republicans have been looking for osama. DON"T EVER SAY the Democrats are weak on defense if you want to keep your teeth!!!!".

The DLC strategy ENSURES that if they don't get the seat, it will go to a Republican.....which makes their Corporate Masters happy!

[colbushwhacker_2000]

55. Fuck you

and go straight to hell.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Disturbed]

60. He obviously doesn't know about this.

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

President Bush -- April 20, 2004

[BigYawn]

117. The problem is they are NOT wiretapping....what they (NSA) are doing

probably is wide-net phishing. This would require that they gather
in ALL the conversations between (supposedly only) oversees and
residents in USA. The super computers then weed out suspicious
conversations which then are given closer scrutiny.

In other words they can not get a go ahead from a court since they
do not know who all the Al Qaeda cohorts are in the USA. So they
listen to every foreign conversation (millions) and using super
computer technology narrow it down. NSA has no way to know in advance
which conversation is a danger to security, so they capture all of
them.

But I still don't understand why they can't file a post-incident
record with the FISA court. My guess is they are not able to narrow
down the possible terror related or suspicious conversations to just
a few which can then be filed with the court. For example if they
filter out 1000 suspicious conversations each day, the paper work to
file all 1000 with the court might be just impossible.

Just all my conjecture.

[pat_k]

133. Eavesdropping on everything is still eavesdropping

. . . even if a computer is doing the sorting, conversations are being intercepted -- listened to. Doing this without a warrant is a crime.

FISA and related electronic surveillance statutes capture some very, very, simple principles.

[sellitman]

59. BAYH t ME Evan!!!!!!! n/t

[Senator Obama]

62. Where is the compelling case ....

that breaking and ignoring existing law was and continues to be necessary to protect this country? That case rests clearly on a "trust me" doctrine from this administration and is certainly not supported by statute or the Constitution. Given this administration's poor credibility, it is clearly fear that permits the continuance of this malfeasance.

We'd be remiss not to hammer this. This is ants versus elephants. We have substantial deficiencies in Homeland Security in terms of border control, ports, protection of nuclear facilities, FEMA as evidenced by Katrina, etc. These are the elephants.

Obama

[pat_k]

135. And I would add this. . .

To date, the only "plots" exposed by this administration have been terrorist daydreams or torture-induced delusions.

Like Mr. Bush's other counter-productive "anti-terrorism" programs, his criminal program of wiretapping Americans without warrants is squandering critical resources. Instead of following up on countless dead ends, professionals in the NSA, FBI, and CIA could be "following the money" or investigating foreign intelligence services to make sure we know who we can trust.

Each member of Congress needs to figure out what to do about Mr. Bush's violations. Members will not "do the right thing" if they don't face facts about this administration.

Mr. Bush is claiming, and exercising, vast unitary authoritarian executive power. A man who, with the stroke of a pen, guts an amendment that passed the Senate 90-9, has proven himself to be impervious to "politics as usual."

Like the child who knew the emperor had no clothes, ordinary citizens see through legalistic claims of complexity. They know that such absolute power is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

As long we allow this rogue administration to remain in power, our laws and regulations aren't worth the paper they are printed on. They just refuse to enforce and flagrantly violate the laws they find inconvenient.

Carrying on "politics as usual" -- drafting legislation; offering plans to them; trying to influence their agenda -- just legitimizes the rogue administration.

WRT wiretapping without a warrant -- it is "politics as usual" to assert that either the administration needs to change the program or we need to change the law. Why should we politely ask him to stop his criminal activity, and then, when he refuses, change the law to make his crimes legal?

When a CEO is embezzling and refuses to stop when caught, the board of directors and law enforcement don't seek to change the law to make the embezzlement legal. They accuse the CEO, remove him from power, and put him on trial. And when found guilty, they punish him.

Bush is breaking the law. The people (the board of directors) and members of Congress (law enforcement) must publicly accuse him of his crimes and take the steps necessary to bring him to justice (demand Impeachment). To do anything less is to be complicit with his violations.

(Of course, wiretapping Americans without warrants is not the only charge. Bush, Cheney, and Rice did not simply "lie us into war," they terrorized the American people with the most colossal bomb threat in history -- mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes.)

[belpejic]

63. Frame It Like Karl

Bayh supports illegal spying on US citizens.

What a nincompoop.

[laugle]

64. Evan Bayh is a total JACKASS!! This comes down to

a matter of trust. People don't trust Bush, PERIOD. And why not capitalize on that!

The issue is not the wiretapping but the OVERSIGHT!!

That moron in the White House is not a KING!!

Democrats should capitalize on the illegal tapping and push for warrants!!

[MadisonProgressive]

66. Mehlman is a fucking nazi

[Gelliebeans]

67. Ok I am writing ol' Evan Bayh

and I am going to tell him to STFU (in the nicest way of course ;) )

[radio4progressives]

82. I was hoping I'd see some action on this.. please let him know dlc are

wrong and they're weak-kneed professional elections losers, telling Dems to support President Bush on any policy is INSANE.

[saltpoint]

68. While I understand that Sen. Bayh's entitled to his own view, I think he's

dead wrong on the warrantless wiretapping.

Has someone on his staff not suggested to him that there is a chance -- perhaps a strong chance -- that the courts will not uphold warrantless wiretapping? And that public sentiment is significantly against it? What Democratic primary does he expect to win by endorsing warrantless wiretapping?

In Jimmy Carter's recent phrase on LARRY KING LIVE, Bush's wiretapping is "illegal, improper, and unnecessary."

Sen. Bayh's father Birch would not have minced words on wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

[Cascadian]

73. What do you have to say about this, DLCers?

This is NOT what the Democratic Party needs right now. NO MORE COWARDICE!!! Doesn't anybody get this? These people are running the Democratic Party into the ground.



John

[in_cog_ni_to]

77. DLC.....'nuff said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=344778

edited to add link

[smoogatz]

78. DLC: It's important not to oppose the President or the Republicans

lest they accuse us of being, um, Democrats.

[radio4progressives]

81. exactly! DLC Mantra: Please Support President Bush and All His Policies

Tommy Smothers summed it up at a golf tournament after lying about a shot he made - the reporter asks, "why did you lie?"

Tommy says: "National Policy".

[AX10]

80. Bush should be allowed to be a dictator?

Is that what you are saying Evan? :eyes:

[BigYawn]

83. Evan Bayh is my kind of a democrat. I will be supporting him in 2008

with my time and my money. He will attract more
crossover votes than any other democrat running.

He will make a formidable opponent to any repug in 2008.
He is very articulate, handsome, experienced politician
unlikely to make blunders such as Clark's "I was the
general, Kerry was the lieutenant".

And don't forget Bayh is from the midwest, as opposed to
an eastern liberal state.

[Pithy Cherub]

84. Your screen name perfectly describes Bayh and his ilk.

:hi:

[BigYawn]

94. Now now Pithy, is that a nice thing to say about a fellow democrat?

Ilk? Common man I am positive on Bayh, if that is a crime
in your eyes, then all I can say is WHATEVER.

[FrenchieCat]

92. xcuse me....but

Clark IS a General, and Kerry WAS a lieutenant....

Where's the blunder? :shrug: The fact that Senator Dole set the media up to distort that statement does not a blunder make!

I would have loved it if Clark would have won the Primaries....and would have said during the GE...."I was a General and Bush was a...never mind what he was.....the question is, where in the fuck was he?"

Yeah....OK....I see that you watch a lot of CNN and believe what you are told. After you yawn, go to bed....after all, you aint' doing much more considering that you buy the Corporate media's lame as propaganda/crap.

[BigYawn]

96. As intelligent Clark is, he is just not a seasoned politician..

I would be delighted if he becomes the president in 2008,
but I am afraid it will be extremely unlikely. He will
lose in the primaries, not wishing that, just stating
my opinion.

Bayh OTOH is a seasoned politician, with very good name
recognistion, looks great on camera, is cool under fire,
and will have a huge centrist crossover votes just like
if general Clark gets the nomination.

Hey, in the end I just want someone who can win, not
an ideologue congruent with my own.

[FrenchieCat]

105. I don't want a seasoned politician......

They ain't been winning for some time now!

Wes, for not being a politician, did well enough last primary...considering he came in 4 months before the first vote, raised 29 million dollars in those 4 months, didn't even compete in Iowa, and still ended being the only other one other than Kerry to win a state that was not his home/birth state, and placed 2nd in quite a few other important southwest states. Plus he got out gracefully when he understood that Kerry had it locked up.

I think for a non-pol, the General did very well....and will do even better next time, if he so chooses.


Don't underestimate Rhodes Scholars from Arkansas!

[BigYawn]

112. LOL only time will tell...2008 primaries still some time away...eom

[Mass]

95. Sure, good way to lose MA or RI to a moderate republican

If we cant see the difference, we may get confused in our votes. We are so stupid, as you imply.

Just to make it clear. I would happily vote for somebody from the midwest, as long as he reflects what I think. I dont know if WI is the midwest, but Feingold is good for me. He knows what a Democrat is.

[BigYawn]

97. Did Mass elect a republican moderate for governor?

I rest my case.

[Mass]

98. And voted twice for Reagan - I rest my case.

[BigYawn]

104. Your argument is irrelevent and erroneous because

the only reason Reagan won Mass was due to his
opponents being at the very left end of democratic
party.

If a republican Romney can win in Mass, certainly a
moderate democrat like Bayh has atleast twice as good
chance of winning there than any moderate republican.

[Mass]

107. Carter at the very left of te democratic party???

Whoa! Obviously, we are not talking about the same thing.

I am not saying that MA would not vote for Bayh! I am saying that you are assuming they would automatically and that you dont have to worry about MA. Depending who is the Democrat and who he would be running against and who they are, MA is not necessarily won, that is all, and it is not by being Bushlite that a Democrat would win.

[BigYawn]

113. Oops I forgot it was Carter in 1980, for some reason I thought it was

Dukakis & Mondale. IMHO Carter lost mainly because of double
digit inflation coupled with high unemployment. The
famous "misery index".

A guy like Bayh has much better chance of carrying some
of the red states in mid-west which could very well give
us electoral victory.

[LincolnMcGrath]

120. delete

[autorank]

137. Red State here....Bayh would carry VA only because any Dem will.

Northern Virginia went from 50-47% Kerry to 60%-40% Kaine, Dem 12 months later.

I've got news for you. It wasn't purely a vote for Kaine or even Warner's legacy (which is excellent) as it was a vote against right wing idiocy. We're sick of goof ball candidates who believe in strange notions (like Robertson) and lousy fiscal management. Wilder would have won as governor had he been able to run again.

Don't try to sell us a lemon and call it a good deal.

Bayh stinks period. He has no standing here in Virginia and he'd just be another Democrat
to weak and unclear to know that he's the "opposition."

By the time 2008 rolls around, Northern Virginia will be poised to go about 65% Democrat.

We want somebody with guts.

In case anybody has failed to notice, the civil liberties issue is huge in Red States, just huge.
Virginia had a Bill of Rights before the Constitution was ratified.

No Bayhs here! Real Democratic candidates for real Democrats.

(Bayh the way, Bayh's father was a great LIBERAL. I'm wondering of little Evan is doing one of those George W things where he's just has to distance himself from dad. Evan is no liberal, or even moderate.)

[Lorien]

101. Of course he is; he's a republican in Dem's clothing. n/t

[Iowa]

85. Yep, the DLC is out providing cover for Rove/Cheney/Bush...

Tom Vilsack recently said the same thing; almost word for word. They're out there preaching the need to appeal to the fears and prejudices of the mob - just like the republicans do. That's what they do - watch those in power, however evil they may be, and imitate them. Unprincipled, lightweight, wanna-bees. Bayh is just another second generation rich boy who has lived an easy life. He does not possess the character necessary to lead.

[kentuck]

86. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS SHIT !

Spying on Americans is OK with some Democrats?

[ladjf]

88. I'd like to encourage Bayh to shut his DLC mouth. He is a Republican

lite.

[speedoo]

89. Bayh is from Indiana. Total rethug state.

I totally disagree with almost everything he says.

But he's a Democrat, and we desperately need him in the Senate (see Alito), so I'm not gonna trash him (yet).

[MisterP]

109. who needs the rule of law when you have a seat!

A Seeeaaat!!!
Birch Bayh was liberal, and he won red Indiana 18 years running until some mental dandelion was swept in on a wave of RonnieCo chicanery.

[belpejic]

114. Things were different with Evan's Dad

I'm sure there are still really liberal pockets of Indiana (Indianapolis, South Bend, Gary, Bloomingdale, etc.), but in reality it's another mostly rural state, like Kentucky (and I know there are some super lib places there), and we Dems lost these voters a long time ago. Not right, cause they really should be our constituents, but they're yet another victim of the Repub spin machine.

That's one of the reasons why Bayh pisses me off. It seems to me as if he wants to have it both ways. I just wish these wishy washy politicians would take a real stand for once. Can you imagine it? Voters might actually begin to respect them...

[Auntie Bush]

90. Well, I say bye, bye ,Bayh!

[Steely_Dan]

93. The Dems Should back Away From This One...

The reason why is that the argument for wiretapping, especially the way the Bush Administration is defending it ("if the enemy is calling someone in our country, we need to know about it).

If they back away now, the issue will be another point just sitting in the back of the minds of the voters...that is, the Dems won't have to defend the RW point that we are weak on defense...etc. etc.

-P

[BigYawn]

99. Exactly, the bigger issue we make on wiretapping, the weaker we look

in the eyes of joe-six-pack voter. No one is going to
convince me a soccer mom is more worried about her
phone being listened into than she is about Al Qaeda
plotting to blow up her kid's school, or husbands tall
building where he works.

[Mass]

108. Thanks for carrying the GOP talking points - This is not what it is about

It is about accountability. Sure, we want * to spy on the terrorists. It is his job. But, he has to follow the law and go to FISA courts to do it and if FISA does not allow to do that properly, he has to ask a change in the law.

Even Republicans like McCain, Graham, Specter, and others understand that, but Bayh is afraid of talking about that.

[BigYawn]

110. How would I know it is a GOP talking point? I don't visit them !!

I don't care what McCain or Graham or anyone thinks.
I am putting myself in the shoes of an average citizen.
And that joe-blo has seen 1000 times on TV what happened
on 911. He/she could'nt care less what is "right" or
what is "legal". All they care about is to keep their
rear end safe.

And that is how it will play out at election time.

[belpejic]

115. Hey Steely

I'm sorry, but I really disagree with you.

i think the problem with Dems is that they don't know how to frame the issues. Can you imagine if Klintoon (extreme sarcasm, don't worry) tried this during the Waco years? The RW "libertarians" probably would've rioted in Cheyenne or something like that. They don't like this sort of government control (I can't blame them), and if Dems had any common sense we'd be exploiting it to the hilt. We just don't know how the spin is done. I think Dean's making some good changes, but the national Dem spokespersons are such wimpy hand washers and I just don't think they've got it in them to lead a massive and necessary change.

[Steely_Dan]

123. I see your point...

...it's a close call.

-P

[belpejic]

131. Agreed. Peace, man. n/t

[Darranar]

100. Who cares about stupid, obsolete concepts like the rule of law?

After all, Election 2006 is coming up, and we wouldn't want to (gasp!) imply that we oppose the policies of an immensely unpopular president.

[usregimechange]

102. The chickenshit stratagey.

[robbedvoter]

103. Vote Bayh - het spied on! Catchy, non? Promosing more of the same

Why bother to replace W then? If the Constitution is just as unimportant to him, what else can he offer us?

[Castilleja]

106. Is he a mole, or something?

Whenever I read statements such as this one, from Democrats, it just makes me really curious. Seems like there have been several, and not just by Evan Bayh. It always sounds like an attempt to influence discussion to the benefit of the other side. What is up with this?

[fujiyama]

111. Another one bites t he dust

Bayh can forget his '08 chances.

I'm glad him and Vilsack are making it clear that they have no real interest in winning the primaries. Granted these two never had my vote anyways...

[sandrakae]

116. Evan needs to STFU.

[montana500]

119. what an asshole. If people wonder whats wrong, look to guys like Bayh.

It;s hard to win when assholes keep pulling tha ball away from you.

[GeorgeGist]

121. Say good Bayh to another useless Democrat.

Who doesn't understand that the greatest threat to the American people are Republicans and devoted members of the complicit opposition.

[spanone]

122. Bayh Bayh Evan....Cross the aisle my friend...it's over.

[dubya_dubya_III]

124. The question is what kind of "country"?

Are they 'protecting'?

This issue concerns law and order, not defence!!

[Radical Activist]

126. So he wants to repeat the losing 2002 and 2004 strategy

of not challenging the Republicans on controversial national security issues. What a fucking moron.

[depakid]

127. "Bayh not only cowers...."

There's the reason why the Democratic party is irrelevant in national politics. In a nutshell.

Bayh and Vilsack. Cowards both of them.

[Vinca]

128. Scratch Evan off the list of potential candidates.

Dems can protect people and obey the law at the same time. Duh!

[leftofthedial]

129. Bayh can forget about running in 2008

[bloom]

130. GAAAAaaaa!!!!

:grr:

[LincolnMcGrath]

134. Evan should read DU's front page. So should the DLCers!

[autorank]

136. Good Bayh! What an idiot. He's a real LIEberman.

I simply can't believe it.

I make an issue of it. I don't want them spying on citizens for non good reason...

...and we know that they will.

Apparently Evan hasn't had time to figure that out.

Screw the NH Primary. I want some big state primaries to decide the race.

Lets move up CA, OR, WA, or NY.

No more neocons! in our party!!!

[JCMach1]

138. Bottom line: the President violated the law!

that consitutes high crimes and misdemeanors...

In Bayh's defense, I have heard the same thing coming from too many Democratic mouths recently...

[AtomicKitten]

139. #1: It's a legal issue. #2: The Dems BETTER use it.

After all the screaming about the rule of law during the 1990s, this is legitimate campaign fodder.
Bayh is succumbing to the trap the Republicans are setting up now to paint the Dems as weak on national security. All the Dems have to do is clarify the issue, frame the issue properly, and don't let go of it. One can still protect the country and NOT break the law. It's as simple as that. Bayh should sit down and STFU.